Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Cardiff, Gateshead, Leeds, New-castle-upon-Tyne, and Uxbridge," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time; and to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

ROAD TRANSPORT SERVICES.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Paper in the name of the Minister of Transport (Colonel ASHLEY):—
That it be an Instruction to all Committees to which Bills containing provisions restricting competition with road transport services provided or to be provided by the promoters, or prejudicing the impartial exercise by a licensing authority of their functions with regard to the issue of licences to ply for hire with omnibuses, have been or may be referred during the present Session, that they do leave out such provisions as aforesaid.

Mr. SPEAKER: The House will remember with regard to this Motion, standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Transport, that when it appeared first on the Paper, through a printer's error, it was difficult to form a reasoned opinion upon it. On its appearance on the Paper yesterday, I asked that it should be adjourned, so that I might give it further consideration. I have now given it most careful consideration, and I have come to the conclusion that it raises questions dealing with general policy which ought not to be brought up at the time of Private Business.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIA (TREATY RELATIONS).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Perso-German treaty of friendship, to which are appended a domiciliary agreement, and a trade, customs, and shipping agreement, was signed in Teheran on 17th February; what is the position of Great Britain as regards her relations with Persia in these respects; and, seeing that the above-mentioned treaty may place this country at a disadvantage by comparison with Germany, will he initiate negotiations to establish similar relations with Persia?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Existing treaty relations between this country and Persia are based on the principle of reciprocal most-favoured-nation treatment, and there is no reason to apprehend that British subjects in Persia and their trade will be placed at a disadvantage by comparison with German nationals. Negotiations for a new general treaty of commerce and navigation have, however, already been initiated with the Persian Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN (KABUL EVACUATIONS).

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all British subjects have now been evacuated from Kabul; and can he give the total number of evacuations to date, stating the nationalities of the persons so evacuated?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. A number of British subjects from India elected to remain in Kabul. The following persons of various nationalities were evacuated from Kabul by the Royal Air Force between the 23rd December, 1928, and the 25th February, 1929:


British subjects
369


Afghans
36


French
23


Germans
57


Italians
19


Persians
25


Rumanians
1


Swiss
1


Syrians
5


Turks
49


United States citizens
1


making a total of 586, of whom some 300 were women and children.

Mr. DAY: Are there any other subjects of other nationalities who elected to remain, or have all been evacuated?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There are, I think, subjects of other nations still there.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state, as regards European or Asiatic countries, respectively, the number of British subjects resident therein who are either foreign correspondents or young persons occupying supernumerary posts for limited periods in order to obtain experience and some knowledge of the country's language, or persons taking up work in the foreign branches of British firms?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I regret that it is not possible to give the desired information. There are no available statistics from which it could be compiled.

Mr. WILSON: Seeing that we have information here, in the Ministry of Labour, as far as foreign nationals are concerned, would it not be an advantage if similar information could be obtained as to British subjects abroad?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have a reciprocal arrangement with France, and, I think, we are making such an arrangement with one other country. The difficulty is that persons going abroad are not compelled to register, so that it is quite impossible to state what they are all doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MINORITIES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the protection hitherto afforded by the League of Nations to minorities protected by the Treaties with Poland, Rumania, Hungary, etc., whether he will take steps to see that His Majesty's Government initiates a more satisfactory system, especially for minorities which have no national representation at present at Geneva?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 27th February last.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for a reversion to the old tradition of this country in regard to the protection of minorities, so honour ably associated with the names of Canning, Palmerston and Gladstone?

Mr. SPEAKER: That raises a big question of policy which cannot be debated now.

Mr. RILEY: Has the Cabinet had recently under consideration our responsibility, along with other Powers, towards minorities under these treaties; and what is our policy in the matter?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have carried out all our responsibilites under the minority treaties. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, the whole subject is now under the consideration of the Council of the League of Nations, and it is being discussed, I think, at the meeting to-day. I hope hon. Members will await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will probably make.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are giving the impression of handing over this traditional duty of ours to the new German Republic?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN OIL (BRITISH INTERESTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that negotiations for the sale of Russian oil have been in progress between the Russia Naphtha Syndicate, a Soviet Government organisation, and the oil group of which the Anglo-Persian
Oil Company is a member; and whether any steps have been taken to safeguard the rights of British subjects who claim compensation for the loss of their oil interests in Russia?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have no information in regard to these matters beyond what has appeared in the Press.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a commercial matter with which we pledged ourselves not to interfere.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor was far more jealous of British rights in this matter?

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is not this corner in oil a perfect example of rationalisation in industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BOYS IN TRAINING, PORTSMOUTH (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what allowance is made to boys under training in His Majesty's Ship "Fishguard," stationed at Portsmouth, in the matter of their travelling expenses to and from their homes in Devonport; and whether, seeing that the boys in training are unable out of their pay to defray the travelling expenses themselves and it therefore falls on the parents, he can arrange for free travelling facilities to be given to these boys when travelling home on leave?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): When proceeding on leave, boys over 16 years of age are granted return tickets by the railway companies at the rate of one and a-third of the ordinary single fare and those under 16 years of age at half that rate, that is to say, at two-thirds of a single full fare. I regret that I am unable to entertain the suggestion that these reduced fares should be borne by public funds.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What is the reason for the discrimination between boys above 16 and those under 16?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should imagine that it is due to the difference in the size of the pay of the two classes of boys.

WAR VESSELS (MEASUREMENT).

Sir CYRIL COBB: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the standard displacement method of measuring war vessels is applicable to pre-War vessels; and whether, as this will have the result of considerably reducing the recorded tonnage of pre-War ships of all nations, it is the intention of the Admiralty, for the purpose of comparison with the ships of other nations, to adopt this new method of measurement for all the vessels enumerated in the Navy List?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Washington standard displacement method of measuring war vessels can be made applicable to all types. The Washington Treaty of 1922, however, contained a provision that "vessels now completed shall retain their present ratings of displacement tonnage in accordance with their national system of measurement." In the Navy List, therefore, standard displacement is only shown against vessels completed since the Washington Treaty.

SUBMARINE SALVAGE (EXPERIMENTS).

Lord FERMOY: 8.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the successful efforts in America in raising promptly an obsolete submarine which was sunk for the purpose of an experiment; and whether he will include in the naval programme for this year the sinking of a similar obsolete vessel and its raising by the employment of the American methods or by any other which may be deemed to be of equal utility and value?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part arrangements have been made for experiments in lifting a submarine to be carried out as soon as the special fittings to be tried are ready.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KIDSGROVE (INVESTIGATIONS).

Mr. BROMFIELD: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the officials of the Employment Exchange at Kidsgrove, Staffordshire, are acting in accordance with his instructions, or with the instructions of his Department, in sending officials of the Employment Exchange to the homes of persons on the unemployment benefit fund to ascertain whether such persons are at home and, if not at home, asking other persons in the house where the person on the fund is, and generally putting them through a severe cross-examination in respect to the person on the fund; and whether the officials at the Employment Exchange are acting under instructions in striking off the fund a person who is at home when they call on him?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): In accordance with instructions visits are sometimes made to the homes of applicants for benefit, in order to verify that the conditions for receiving benefit are satisfied. Local officials do not themselves disallow claims: all decisions to disallow are given by the insurance officers in London.

Mr. BROMFIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman inform me whether the officials of this Exchange are acting under the Ministry's instructions in striking off the fund any person whom they find at home?

Mr. BETTERTON: I could not hear the last part of the hon. Member's question. With regard to the part which I did hear, as I have already said, visits are made sometimes in accordance with instructions issued by the Ministry.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that these men are interrogated by the officials of the Exchange; and, when there are courts of referees and all the rest of it, why should it be necessary to have a spy system in addition?

Mr. BETTERTON: Really, the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. These so-called investigations are often quite as much in the interests of the men themselves as for any other purpose. It
is very often the case that charges are made which require investigation in the interests of the men.

Mr. BROMFIELD: Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Employment Exchange officials can make inquiry at a person's home, and, if they find the person not at home, can strike such a person off the fund?

Mr. BETTERTON: Certainly not. The fact that a man is not at home may show that he is seeking work and may be very much in his interest.

Mr. BROMFIELD: Is it the case that, on the Ministry's instructions, if a man is found at home he can be struck off by the Exchange officials?

Mr. BETTERTON: Certainly not. A man may be at home for a very good reason. He may be ill, for instance, in which case it is to his interest that the fact should be known.

Mr. BROMFIELD: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Mr. Speaker, this is an awfully important matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have the same question put over and over again and exactly the same answer given.

Mr. BROMFIELD: This question is important to the persons in this position, and I am just asking the hon. Gentleman if he will say whether the officials at this Employment Exchange are under the instructions of the Ministry in deciding that a man must be struck off the Fund if they find him at home?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have answered that already, and I might say, in addition, that it does not rest with the officials as to whether or not a man is struck off.

Mr. BROMFIELD: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is the first time the hon. Member has put a question for months, and he cannot get a chance!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot take up the time of the House like this. If he is dissatisfied, he must put down another question on the Paper.

DEPENDANTS' BENEFIT.

Mr. OLIVER: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on unemployed widowers who are deprived of dependant benefit where their daughters are acting as housekeepers, he will consider an early amendment to Section 4, Sub-section 2 (b), of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927?

Mr. BETTERTON: The limits within which dependants' benefit ought to be granted under an unemployment insurance scheme, under which persons with dependants pay the same contributions as those without dependants, were carefully considered by the Blanesburgh Committee. The existing law gives effect to the unanimous recommendations of the Committee, and I do not think a case has been made out for reopening the question.

Mr. OLIVER: The Blanesburgh Committee is not Parliament, and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in view of the experience which has been gained since this Act was put upon the Statute Book, it is not time the amendment which I now suggest was made?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is true that the Blanesburgh Committee is not Parliament, but Parliament legislated on the lines of the unanimous recommendation of that Committee, and this is one of those recommendations.

Mr. OLIVER: Will the hon. Gentleman mind answering the question on the Paper?

Mr. BETTERTON: That I have already done.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Minister tell us how it is they are always sheltering themselves behind the Blanesburgh Report?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman not stop sheltering behind this very stupid and foolish Report?

Mr. OLIVER: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that unemployed men have been deprived of the dependant allowance in respect of their wives in consequence of the latter earning, in some instances, only a few
pence per week; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the law in this regard?

Mr. BETTERTON: The statutory provision, which has been in force since dependants' benefit was firs; instituted in 1921, is that such benefit is not payable in respect of a wife who is in regular wage-earning employment or is engaged in any occupation ordinarily carried on for profit. Any question arising with regard to it is decided by the statutory authorities. In accordance with the decisions of the umpire, employment averaging less than five days a month or less than eight hours a week is not, for this purpose, regarded as regular wage-earning employment. It may occasionally happen that dependants' benefit is disallowed when the wages or profit earned is small, but I am afraid I do not see how legislation to remedy this could be framed without creating other difficulties.

Mr. OLIVER: In view of one or two recent cases where an unemployed man has been deprived of his wife's allowance in consequence of the wife earning as little as 3d. per week, is it not time the Amendment was made?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am perfectly well aware that the point put by the hon. Member is really a substantial one, but all I can say is that it has been considered both by the Ministry and by the Blanesburgh Committee, and we can see no way of avoiding these difficulties without creating other and worse difficulties.

Mr. SHINWELL: But if eight hours per week are the minimum, why is it that women have been struck off and refused benefit because they have undertaken two days' charing a week, in the course of which they have worked for only four hours?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have not that particular case in mind, but the construction of the Act is, of course, subject to the umpire's decision, and I can send to the hon. Member the umpire's decision bearing on that point.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does it not follow, then, that the Act is operating mere harshly towards women than towards men?

Mr. DAY: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been transferred from the depressed areas to the Borough of Southwark and obtained employment through the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange?

Mr. BETTERTON: The number of men and boys who have been transferred direct from the depressed areas into employment in the area of the Borough Employment Exchange under the Industrial Transference Scheme is 64.

Mr. DAY: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that among the thousands of unemployed in Southwark there are sufficient men and boys to fill these jobs without going to other areas to find them?

Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot think that this small number would have any appreciable effect. It amounts to less than one in 1,000 of the insured population.

Mr. DAY: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that even 64 people in Southwark could be found work at the Employment Exchanges without bringing in these men from outside areas?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is really a question of policy, which we have often discussed in debate, and I cannot go into it in answer to a question.

Mr. DAY: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons have been found employment at the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange for a period of two weeks or longer during the six months ended 31st January, 1929?

Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Thomas Ryan, 11, Forge Hammer Row, Cwmbran, near Newport, Mon., who has had his unemployment benefit stopped on the ground that he refused employment at the British Industries Fair; whether he is aware that this man was sent to London, under the transference scheme,
and sent to various places by the Shepherds Bush Exchange, including a hotel and the British Industries Fair, where he was informed by the manager that ex-service men were preferred and that no work was available for him, and that he was eventually sent back to his home by the Exchange; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have not yet received the necessary report regarding this case, but I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. Gentleman grant me an interview to discuss this matter, if his reply is not satisfactory to me?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly do that. I will communicate with the hon. Member, whom I shall be happy to see, the moment I have the information he desires.

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet come to any decision as to the continuance or otherwise of what is known as the transition period; if so, what is the nature of his decision; and, if not, can he state when a decision is likely to be arrived at?

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement on this subject before the House rises for Easter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that really that will be cutting it tremendously fine, in view of the anxiety that is felt in many quarters, and cannot the Minister see his way to make the statement at an earlier date than that?

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend is fully mindful of the importance of making a statement on this matter, which is an important one, as soon as possible, and he has undertaken to do that.

Mr. SHINWELL: What is the special information for which the right hon. Gentleman is waiting to enable him to come to a decision?

Mr. BETTERTON: The information which is necessary before we legislate or if we legislate—I do not know whether or
not we shall—on a very important matter.

Mr. SHINWELL: But what is the information?

Mr. LAWSON: Will this statement be made in time to give an opportunity for discussion?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, certainly.

TRANSFERRED WORKERS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour if any cases have been brought to his notice of men having been discharged in certain districts and their places taken at reduced rates of pay by miners transferred from distressed areas; and will he inquire into this question?

Mr. BETTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I do not think a general inquiry on the lines suggested by the hon. Member is practicable. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to inquire into it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not obvious that if 60 or 70 miners have been sent to Devonport and Plymouth and have been found work there, when there have been 5,000 or 6,000 unemployed there for many years, they must have taken jobs for which those unemployed were waiting?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, but that is not the question the hon. Member asked. He asked whether their places had been taken at reduced rates of pay by miners from distressed areas.

WEST LOTHIAN.

Mr. SHINWELL: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour how many female unemployed persons there were in West Lothian at the last available date; and the number in receipt of benefit?

Mr. BETTERTON: At 25th February, 1929, there were 264 females on the registers of Employment Exchanges in West Lothian, and of this number, 150 had claims to benefit admitted or under consideration. The total numbers on the registers included 95 uninsured females.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Viscount SANDON: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour why the undertaking
to enter resident domestic service in exchange for the expenditure of taxpayers' money in training schools for this purpose has been abandoned; and what percentage of the whole and what expenditure has thus been without return?

Mr. BETTERTON: This requirement was abolished as long ago as January, 1924. I am not in a position to say on what grounds the decision was then taken, but I may point out that such an undertaking is not really enforceable in practice, and experience has shown that since it was abandoned the proportion of trainees entering domestic service has increased.

ALIENS (CLERICAL EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state, before permits are granted to aliens to take up clerical employment in Britain, what steps are taken to ascertain whether the work could be efficiently done by British subjects unemployed?

Mr. BETTERTON: Before a permit is issued the employer is required on the form of application to state the steps he has taken to find labour here. In some cases he is required to notify the vacancy to the Local Employment Exchange and in others to get in touch with the local Chamber of Commerce. Apart from young foreigners who are coming here in supernumerary capacities to gain experience, the great majority of the permits issued in respect of clerical employments are for aliens having a knowledge of foreign languages.

Mr. MORRISON: Surely the hon. Member knows that when men of this character, to whom a knowledge of languages is essential, are wanted, it is perfectly useless to apply at an Employment Exchange? Is the employment department of the London Chamber of Commerce asked whether it has any suitable persons before aliens are imported?

Mr. BETTERTON: As I have said in my answer, in some cases they are required to notify the vacancy at an Employment Exchange, and in others to get in touch with the local chamber of commerce.

Mr. MORRISON: But can the hon. Member say whether the employment department of the London Chamber of Commerce is asked?

Mr. BETTERTON: The London Chamber of Commerce or any other chamber of commerce is asked, because we are just as anxious as anybody else that aliens should not be admitted for this kind of work if there are men or women in this country who can do it equally well.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state, of the 4,229 aliens admitted for clerical occupations since 1924, how many permits were for the purpose of taking up work in the British branches of foreign companies and corporations?

Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that the information required is not available.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a strong feeling that this is a very large number of aliens to come into this country to take clerical occupations? Since 1924, there have been 4,000. There is a strong feeling that there are plenty of ex-officers and other educated people in this country who could do the work, but that these aliens have been brought in to take the work at cheaper wages.

Mr. BETTERTON: If that be the impression, I hope the answer I have given will go far to dissipate it.

STATISTICS.

Captain MACMILLAN (for Viscountess ASTOR): 16.
asked the Minister of Labour the average number of persons registered as unemployed in 1928; whether these were the same individuals; and, if not, the number of separate individuals who registered during the year?

Mr. BETTERTON: In 1928, the average number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 1,231,109. Only a small proportion of this total consisted of the same individuals throughout the year. The total number of separate individuals on the register at some time or other during the year was about 4½ millions, or nearly four times the average number at any one date.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS ACT (CATERING TRADE).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the wide variation in the hours and conditions of employment of persons engaged in the catering trades; that some observe fair conditions of labour, while competitors work their employés long hours and frequently for low wages; and if he will, in view of this, institute an inquiry under the Trades Board Act into the conditions of employment of workpeople in this trade?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 2nd August last.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (HOLIDAYS WITH PAY).

Mr. KELLY: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour the industries in which agreement has been arrived at for an annual holiday with pay; and the number of men and women who under such agreements are entitled to annual holidays with pay?

Mr. BETTERTON: The number of wage-earners covered by the agreements for holidays with pay is approximately 1½ millions. A list of industries in which there are agreements providing for holidays with pay was published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for March, 1925. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Gazette referred to, with notes bringing the information up to date.

Mr. KELLY: Does the list contain the names of any Government Departments?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think the hon. Member had better look at the list and form his own opinion.

Mr. KELLY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of industrial employés in the service of the Air Ministry, and the number of these workers who are entitled to at least one week's holiday with pay each year?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The number of industrial employés, strictly so described, in the service of the Air Ministry at home stations is 5,373; none of these receive leave with pay apart from the recognised public holidays.
There are in addition 1,338 employés, graded as industrial, but not serving in workshops or the like, who are entitled to at least one week's additional holiday with pay.

Mr. KELLY: Have the Ministry given consideration to the question of giving them an annual holiday with pay?

Sir P. SASSOON: I would like to have notice of that question.

Mr. KELLY: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as representing the First Commissioner of Works the number of men and women employed by the Office of Works as industrial workers and the number of these employés who are entitled to at least one week's holiday with pay each year?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The total industrial staff is approximately 3,000, of whom about 2,600 are entitled to at least one week's holiday with pay each year.

Mr. KELLY: Is any consideration being given to the other workers?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The other 400 are mostly engaged on intermittent work in connection with ancient monuments all over the country. Practically, none of them work right throughout the year, and so the position is different in their case.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

ATLANTIC FLIGHTS (ANCHORED ISLANDS).

Viscount SAN DON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has entered into any arrangement or understanding with the American promoters of the scheme to lay down permanently anchored islands for the use of aircraft at regular intervals across the Atlantic, the first of which is to be started immediately; what are the terms and conditions of their use by British aircraft; whether he will first of all take engineering advice as to the safety of this device; and whether it is to be armed for defence?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am aware that the scheme referred to by my Noble Friend has been proposed in America, and any development of it will be closely watched by the Air Ministry, but no question
has arisen of entering into any arrangement or understanding with its promoters. The answer to the first part of the question is, therefore, in the negative, and the remaining parts do not arise.

AIRSHIP R100.

Mr. THURTLE: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is yet in a position to state when the airship R100 will take the air?

Sir P. SASSOON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) on 31st January.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (BOMBING SQUADRONS).

Mr. THURTLE: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many of the proposed additional squadrons for home defence will be composed of bombing machines?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer is four squadrons, of which one will be a cadre squadron and three auxiliary Air Force squadrons.

Mr. THURTLE: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many of the existing home defence squadrons are bombing squadrons?

Sir P. SASSOON: The home defence force at present includes 19 bombing squadrons, of which eight are cadre or auxiliary Air Force squadrons.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the fact that all these bombing squadrons will necessarily be employed in offensive operations overseas, does not the hon. Baronet think it is a misnomer to call them home defence squadrons?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).

Mr. WELLOCK: 31.
asked the Attorney-General upon whose recommendations the appointments to the reconstituted advisory committees will be made?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Lord Chancellor consults the Lord
Lieutenant, and persons representing different points of view, about the members he appoints to his advisory committees. He does not bind himself to consult any particular organisation or individual. The committees are appointed to advise the Lord Chancellor, and any noble Friend is, of course, free to select his advisers in the manner he thinks most suitable.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUALS, TAMWORTH.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has seen a report of a recent meeting of the Tamworth Board of Guardians, in which it was stated that the number of casuals was nearly double and that the overcrowding was serious, and that the vice-chairman pointed out that if Lichfield and Atherstone casual wards were re-opened it would relieve the pressure and that men were taken before the magistrates through those wards not being re-opened; and will he cause those wards to be re-opened?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has seen a newspaper report of the meeting to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but he has received no representations from the guardians or the vagrancy committee on this subject. If such representations are made, they will receive my right hon. Friend's careful consideration, but the information at present before him does not support the view that the re-opening of the Lichfield or Atherstone casual wards would relieve the situation at Tamworth.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABATTOIRS.

Sir R. THOMAS: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the number of abattoirs in some districts is considered by the local authorities to be excessive; and whether, with a view to more effective inspection, he will introduce legislation empowering local authorities to close all redundant registered slaughter-houses?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware that the number of private slaughter-houses in some districts is considered by the local authorities to be
unnecessarily large, but he can give no undertaking to introduce legislation of the character suggested by the hon. Member?

Sir R. THOMAS: If that be the case, surely the Department of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be prepared to advance a remedy?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I think there were a number of local authorities who thought the number was unnecessary, but it must be realised that there are a great many important questions of policy involved.

Sir R. THOMAS: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these local authorities are quite powerless without the assistance of the Department?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it might be a great inconvenience to persons using these places if there was not a fairly reasonable number of them, and that they and not the local authorities are the best judges as to whether they are convenient or not. If they are redundant, they will not be used.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARKING PLACES (LIGHTING REGULATIONS).

Sir FRANK MEYER: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that Regulation 6 of the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations of 19th April, 1928, is framed in such a way as to deprive the chief officer of police of an area of any real powers to dispense with the lighting of vehicles standing at parking places; and whether he is prepared to issue revised Regulations?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I cannot agree with the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member in the first part of the question. The only limitations upon the powers of the chief officer of police are:
(1) That the parking place must not be on a part of the highway which is ordinarily used for the passing and repassing of vehicles, and
(2) That the parking place must be adequately lit.
These two conditions are, in my opinion, essential in the interests of public safety.

Sir F. MEYER: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he does not think the words "ordinarily used for the passing and repassing of vehicles" restrict the police from allowing unlighted vehicles at any parking place, because it is obvious that vehicles have to pass to get there? Does not the inclusion of these words make the whole intention of the Act nugatory?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think the wording of the Regulations was not meant to have that effect. I am as anxious as anybody that the provisions of the Act of last year shall be carried out in their entirety. Possibly the best thing would be for me to confer with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the whole matter.

Sir F. MEYER: When conferring with the Home Secretary, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider whether it is possible to allow one lamp only to be used for parking purposes instead of three as at present, that is, the rear light and two lights in front?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider whether in cases where a row of vehicles are standing the lighting of the foremost and rearmost is not enough? Even in a cul-de-sac, beside a picture house, people are made to turn on all their lights, and these are exhausted by the time the people come out of the picture house?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has not my right hon. and gallant Friend power to make regulations—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a debate on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (LABOUR UNIONS).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will give the latest figures showing the number of labour unions registered under the Indian Trade Union Act?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Twenty-seven labour unions were registered up to 31st March, 1928, which is the latest date for which full figures are available.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: Are there no later figures?

Earl WINTERTON: I will endeavour to obtain the later figures. To a large extent, this is a matter which does not come within the cognisance of my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India. I am aware of the interest taken in this question of trade unions in India upon all sides of the House, and I have endeavoured to obtain later figures on this and kindred matters.

Mr. RILEY: Is the number of labour unions in India an increasing or a diminishing one?

Earl WINTERTON: That I could not say without later figures. As I have already explained, that is not a matter with which officially I am greatly concerned, but I recognise the interest taken in this matter. It was only when the question was put down on the Order Paper that my attention was called to the fact that the figures are only up to the end of March last. I will endeavour to obtain later figures.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Have the labour trade unions in India as much liberty to operate as the labour trade unions in Great Britain?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: When the Under-Secretary makes his inquiries as to the number of trade unions, will he ascertain whether the officials are native Indians or not?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

STATISTICS.

Viscount SANDON: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the percentage of accuracy when the correct figures are ultimately known of the estimates as to imports and exports and the balances of income and expenditure in transactions with other countries as published annually in the Board of Trade Journal; and whether the degree of error has been on the conservative or liberal side?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The figures of imports and exports used in the estimate are based on the declarations made to the Customs and are only liable to small corrections. The
figures relating to the "invisible" elements in the balances of income and expenditure in transactions with other countries, are arrived at on the best information available at the time, and every endeavour is made not to overestimate. But this is not a case in which a percentage of accuracy can be calculated. I would refer my Noble Friend to the article on the Balance of Trade in the current issue of the Board of Trade Journal, in which are stated such corrections as have been made in the estimates for 1926 and 1927, and the reasons for their adoption.

Mr. SKELTON: Is it not my hon. Friend's experience that the degree of error is generally greater on the Liberal side than on the Conservative side?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the hon. Member say whether under the heading of invisible exports the transfer of the Lloyd George Fund to the Liberal party is included?

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (PACKING PAPER).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the prices of packing paper before and after safeguarding; and whether there has been any increase of price since the industry was safeguarded?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the President of the Board of Trade on 11th December to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), of which I am sending him a copy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Parliamentary Secretary able to say whether the wages in this industry have been raised?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That does not arise out of the question.

PETROL SUPPLIES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 40.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in what countries Government monopolies have been set up in petrol; and in what countries do the Governments control petrol prices or themselves engage in refining or marketing mineral oil products?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I am advised that the oil industry in Russia is completely under Government control and that there is a Government monopoly in petrol in Spain. I know of no other countries where petrol prices are controlled. The Governments of Egypt and of the Argentine engage to a limited extent in the refining of crude oil.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the French Government also subsidises its own oil-refining plants?

Commodore KING: Not to my knowledge.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Is the monopoly in this country under any control?

Commodore KING: I know of no monopoly.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Are not these monopolies in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Samuel Commission Report?

TANGANYIKA (COFFEE).

Sir R. THOMAS: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total export and the value of coffee from Tanganyika; and what is the proportion of native-grown coffee for the year 1920 and for the last year for which complete returns are available?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): 131,899 cwts. of coffee, to the value of £463,420, were exported from the Territory in 1927. 208,622 cwts. were exported during 1928, but the value of this total has not yet been reported. I regret that no information is available which would enable an estimate to be made of the proportion of native-grown coffee in the total amount exported in 1920. In 1927, native-grown coffee mainly from Bukoba constituted roughly three-quarters of the total tonnage exported.

Mr. MORRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the quality of the native-grown coffee compares with that of the non-native-grown?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different question.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (POSTERS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any payment is made by the Empire Marketing Board to the owners of sites on which the Board's posters are displayed?

Mr. AMERY: Payments from the Empire Marketing Fund are made in a limited number of these cases.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many boards there are?

Mr. AMERY: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

TRAWLING REGULATIONS.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any steps are to be taken to carry out the recommendations of the 1924 Committee, presided over by Lord Mackenzie, to inquire into the trawling and policing of Scottish sea fisheries; and whether, as this Committee recommended greater stringency in regard to the closing and protection of the Clyde and the Moray Firth against the depredations of the trawlers and the keeping out of these areas of foreign trawlers by international agreement, he will say why no steps have been taken to secure the prohibition, if need be, by laying the matter before the League of Nations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): In addition to measures taken to strengthen the protection fleet, attention has been given, as recommended by the Mackenzie Committee, to the situation in the Moray Firth. At the request of the British Government a Committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was appointed to consider whether the prohibition of trawling in that area should be continued, modified, or extended. The Report of this Committee recommends, on scientific grounds, a closure only of part of the area for part of the year both to trawling and to seining. The Report has been made public and is receiving consideration. Apart from this, the whole question of the extent of territorial waters is now under consideration by a Committee of the League of Nations.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: The Secretary of State for Scotland did not mention the Clyde. Do I understand that the answer applies only to the Moray Firth?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As far as regards the main question, yes.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as the Fishery Board for Scotland has proposed, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State, to throw open to trawling an area of the Clyde hitherto closed to trawling by British subjects, and as this proposal has caused anxiety amongst the Scottish people, he will at once cause the proposal to be withdrawn, in view of the findings of Lord Mackenzie's Committee for greater stringency and exclusion of trawling from Scottish waters, which findings have never been called in question by any inquiry of like standing and publicity?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The proposal to which my hon. and learned Friend refers is the result of a very careful survey of all relevant factors by the Fishery Board for Scotland, and I am not prepared, without due consideration, to reject it. I am aware, however, that even the limited relaxation proposed has aroused considerable opposition, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the objections which have been received will be fully examined. The findings of the Committee referred to will be kept carefully in view in this connection. I fully appreciate the desirability of an early decison.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: With a view to satisfying the popular view and the fishermen, will the Secretary of State, if he finds that there is any proposal to change which is likely to upset the findings of the Lord Mackenzie Committee, set up a powerful and potent Committee to make a fresh investigation into this question before he sanctions the regulations?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that the people who are suffering most on account of these restrictions are the Scottish fishermen and not the English fishermen?

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the objections to the proposed removal of
restrictions in the Clyde area to which he refers are equally strong if not stronger in the Moray Firth area?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland not aware that this trawler business is the same thing that caused our trouble with Russia, and will he have due regard to the fishermen round the Scottish coast who are being deprived of their means of livelihood? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take similar steps to send these trawlers back to Hull and Grimsby?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) knows nothing about the business?

Mr. J. BROWN: Will the Secretary of State take into consideration the expert advice and conclusions come to, not only theoretically, but from the experience of expert fishermen in the Clyde area, as to the beam and otter trawling proposed by the Government?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This question deals solely with the Clyde, from which area I am still receiving representations. As soon as I have received all the representations, as well as the Report of the Fishery Board on those representations, I shall come to a decision.

Mr. SKELTON: In view of the importance of this question, will the right hon. Gentleman give an opportunity of debating it in the House before the regulations are issued?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the Secretary of State for Scotland see that the English trawlers are not penalised to any greater extent than the foreign trawlers?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that already a trawler from the constituency of one of the Gentlemen opposite has been fined for anticipating the coming into effect of these regulations, and will the principle of any such regulation applied to the Clyde also be applicable to the Moray Firth?

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions must be put down on the Order Paper.

EGGS (MARKING).

Mr. SKELTON: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the national egg-mark for Scotland will come into operation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is hoped to introduce the national mark for Scottish produced eggs on 1st June next.

Major COLFOX: Does the Secretary of State estimate that the producers of Scottish eggs are likely to benefit by the introduction of the national egg mark?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, sir; I certainly hope that they will.

Mr. SKELTON: Would it be possible to accelerate the date—[Interruption.]—on account of the fact that the coming into operation of the English mark has already introduced a great deal of competition from English eggs in the Glasgow market.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should be glad to see the date accelerated in that way. This is a voluntary arrangement, and application has already been made for registration on that date.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that third-class eggs are marked with the Scottish national motto?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONERS (INCOME TAX).

Mr. BROMLEY: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why certain inspectors of taxes have issued a circular to widows in receipt of the old age pension asking them if they pay Income Tax?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I have no knowledge of any such circular, but, if the hon. Member will send me a copy of the circular to which he refers, I will cause inquiry to be made and will communicate the result to him in due course.

Mr. BROMLEY: If I am able to supply the hon. Gentleman with the information he seeks, will he undertake to endeavour to see that the inspectors of taxes pay more attention to those who are known to have large incomes and are now appearing so frequently in the Courts, rather than badger old working women of 80?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not admit the hon. Member's premise. I do not admit the issue of any such circular as is referred to. If it was issued I do not know of it, and have never seen it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 45.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the continuous overtime worked by the taxes branch of the Inland Revenue Department, it is proposed to make such addition to the staff as would render overtime unnecessary?

Mr. SAMUEL: It should, perhaps, be explained to my hon. Friend that the amount of overtime recorded last year was less than one-half of the working time of one clerk per district. All that is possible is done to reduce overtime, but, owing to seasonal pressure, some overtime is always necessary. It would not be proper to maintain staff constantly at a number corresponding to the absolute peak of a variable work load.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is not this overtime due to the sending of large numbers of red letters to individual taxpayers?

Captain FAIRFAX: Will my hon. Friend consider reducing taxation instead of adding to the staff?

Major COLFOX: Would not many individual taxpayers be very much relieved if considerably less overtime were worked?

Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, if hon. Members on the other side of the House were to pay their Income Tax as well as those on this side, there would be no need to work overtime?

NON-PENSIONABLE EMPLOYÉS.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 46.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of men assigned from the Southborough examination and its supplementary examination for non-pensionable employment?

Mr. SAMUEL: The number of men assigned from the Southborough examinations for unestablished appointment is 221.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (FATHER MIKALEF).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has been requested to give and is giving support to the Prime Minister of Malta in connection with the dispute between that Government and the Vatican over the expulsion of Father Mikalef to Italy?

Mr. AMERY: His Majesty's Government, at the instance of the Maltese authorities, have instructed His Majesty's Minister to the Vatican to approach the Holy See with the request that an Apostolic Visitor may be sent to the island to investigate certain difficulties that have arisen—including the case referred to in the question—between the Maltese Ministry and the local ecclesiastical authorities.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any possibility of transferring to a more sympathetic country an ecclesiastic who threatens with excommunication the British Prime Minister of a free self-governing Colony?

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is it not a mistake to say that there is a dispute between the Maltese Government and the Vatican?

Mr. AMERY: There is no dispute with the Vatican. There are certain controversies in Malta at the present moment, and the Maltese authorities have requested the intervention of an Apostolic Visitor to compose them.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "TRITONIA" (EXPLOSION).

Sir BASIL PETO (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been informed that Robert White, master of the steamship "Tritonia," and members of the crew, have been placed under arrest at Buenaventura, Colombia, pending investigation of the explosion that occurred on board that vessel; whether they have been since released, and whether he will take steps to see that they have legal assistance in the event of the Government of Colombia attaching responsibility to the captain or any of the crew for the results of the explosion?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am in communication with His Majesty's Minister at Bogotá regarding this matter, but I have not yet received confirmation of the reported release of the master and crew. I understand that the owners of the ship have arranged that the captain and crew shall have the best legal assistance available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to say what business it is proposed to take on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir; the Second Reading of the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Bill, the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill, and of a Supplementary Estimate for Dominion Services (Compensation to Transferred Officers), and, if there be time, other Orders on the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the other Orders include the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate of the 1st March, which was adjourned last night—the Irish loyalists Resolution?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think so, if we do not get it before. As a matter of fact, I understand that there is a prospect of being able to take other Orders. Consultations always take place through the usual channels as to what Orders shall be taken; it is never done without consultation.

Mr. BATEY: When are we to expect the Supplementary Estimate in connection with the Lord Mayor's Fund?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know when that will be introduced.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the re-committal of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill; in Committee on the re-committed Bill; and on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, on re-committal, be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The prime Minister.]

ALIENS.

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the status of married women.
This is a very simple Bill, and the principle has already received the unanimous support of the House. It deals with four points. It provides that the British woman who marries a foreigner shall not thereby lose her nationality unless she makes a declaration that she wishes to do so. It respects equally the nationality of a foreign woman who marries an Englishman, but provides a much simpler arrangement if she desires to acquire English nationality. It is retrospective as regards British women. They will automatically resume their British nationality if they have been married to an alien unless they make a declaration that they wish to keep the nationality of their husband. It is not retrospective with regard to foreign women who are married to Britishers, as this might cause hardship. I do not think the principle of the Bill needs very much recommendation. As a matter of fact, when British women had very few other rights they had this one. They enjoyed the right to their own nationality until the law of 1870.
Now that women have been granted the vote on the same terms as men and are in every way equal citizens with men, surely it is not logical to deny as great a right, the right to their own nationality. Of course, the obvious reply might be made that the way to keep her own nationality is not to marry a foreigner, but that in itself constitutes an inequality, as a man cannot be deprived of his nationality whomever he marries or whatever he does. At present, we have a large number of other countries which have made great strides in this matter since the War—the United States of America and most of the other American republics, Russia, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the other Scandinavian countries. The difficulties of the British Empire are usually used as a screen for not granting this modest request of British women to their nationality. The British Empire is used as a screen by Departments which do not want any change in the present law. The law was passed by Canada until it was intimated that the British Government
were not in favour of it, and the Canadian Act was then revoked. The women's organisations of all parties in Australia, Africa, Canada and New Zealand have passed resolutions in favour of this principle. Many members of the Imperial Conference have approved the principle, but we understand that the home Government have been in most cases the stumbling block.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks) indicated dissent.

Miss WILKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has always shown himself a strong champion of the equality of women, and I trust that we shall have this little Bill passed.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only speak in opposition to the Bill, and I do not want to oppose it; but, if the hon. Lady will allow me to answer her question, I can perhaps give the explanation. I happen to have been the chairman of a sub-committee of the last Imperial Conference on which all the Dominions were represented. According to my recollection, all but one Dominion, including the home Government, were favourable to the proposal which I understand the hon. Lady makes, but, because one Dominion stood out—on various grounds I understand—they came to the conclusion that it was so undesirable to have a different nationality law throughout the Empire—although nine-tenths of the Empire might be one way—that we allowed it to stand over to the next Conference, when I hope the Dominion that did not agree will fall into line. I and the Government are in favour of the Bill.

Miss WILKINSON: If my little Bill does nothing else it has drawn from the Home Secretary a valuable statement for which I thank him and which, I am sure, the Women's Organisations that are backing the Bill will regard as equally valuable. I feel, under the circumstances, though I have a long argument which would take the rest of the ten minutes, after the Home Secretary's statement there is no further need for me to inflict the rest of my speech on the House or to push open an already open door. I will therefore end by welcoming the declaration of the Home Secretary and I hope the Bill will be given a First Reading as an indication of the spirit of the House
and that we welcome the assurance of the Home Secretary that he will give his warm personal support to the Measure at the next Imperial Conference.

Mr. SPEAKER: I assume the Home Secretary was intervening to answer a question. If not, he would have been out of order in making a speech.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Wilkinson, Miss Bondfield, Miss Lawrence, Viscountess Astor, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, and Mr. Kingsley Griffith.

ALIENS BILL,

"to amend the law with respect to the status of married women," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Blackburn Corporation Bill.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Llanfrechfa Upper and Llantarnam Water Board Bill.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Torquay Extramural Cemetery Company Bill.

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

South Suburban Gas Bill.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill.

Southampton Corporation Bill.

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Overseas Trade Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision as to the pension fund and provident funds established by the Pacific Cable Board; and for other purposes." [Pacific Cable Board Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to transfer to the Corn Exchange Company the undertaking of the London Corn Exchange Company; to confer further powers on the Corn Exchange Company and authorise them to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Corn Exchange Company Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the Sheffield Gas Acts and Orders, 1885 to 1928." [Sheffield Gas (Consolidation) Bill [Lords.]

Corn Exchange Company Bill [Lords],

Sheffield Gas (Consolidation) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928).

Estimate presented, of the further sum required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1929 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended, further considered.

[2nd ALLOTTED DAY.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Provisions for uniting burghs and combining counties for certain purposes.)

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, in page 15, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in the case where there is in force, as regards one of the burghs included in a united burgh, an order under Section 7 of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1903, fixing a day other than the first Tuesday of November for the annual retiral and election of councillors, such order shall in the aforesaid year be deemed to apply to each of the other burghs included in such united burgh, and the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall apply with the substitution of the day so fixed for the first Tuesday of November.
This Amendment is moved at the request of certain burghs that are going to be combined. It has been found in one case, the combination of Kilrenny and Anstruther, in Fife, that the date on which the Town Council would be elected is inconvenient, particularly from the fishing point of view, and it is in accordance with their representations that I move the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JAMES STUART: I beg to move, in page 15, line 42, to leave out paragraph (ii).
On the last occasion, when this matter was under discussion in Committee, there was very little time, owing to the course of business, to deal with it. The discussion took place on an Amendment to omit the whole Sub-section. In this case, the Amendment is merely to omit a paragraph. The matter, though a small one, is of considerable importance to the district which it affects. It will not in any way wreck the Bill. If anything, it will simplify it, because in working out the details of an amalgamation, such as is proposed in this Clause, there are bound to be various matters which will crop up and will require negotiation and
matters on which it will be very difficult to get the amalgamating parties to agree. If the Amendment were accepted, those difficulties would be avoided. In addition to simplifying the putting of the Bill into operation, Nairn would be released from amalgamation, which has never been asked for and is not wanted. The Secretary of State and his colleague are well aware by now that very strong opposition is felt locally to this proposal. All the local authorities are opposed to it, and the Secretary of State has received a petition signed by a considerable percentage of the residents. Had more time been available and had the weather conditions been less severe, there is no doubt that many more people would have signed that petition if the upland districts had been canvassed more systematically. I should like to thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for the very careful attention which they have always given to the representations which I have made to them on this subject, I only hope that the representations may have weight. I realise that by this amalgamation the county of Nairn are not going to lose their identity entirely. They will still retain their ordinary parish, and they will retain their county council for certain purposes, but that will only be for minor purposes. They will also retain their name. They will not be merged into Morayshire in that respect. Nevertheless, very grave apprehension is felt, and I should like to state the two chief reasons as to why strong opposition is felt to this proposal.
It has been stated by the Secretary of State that some of the functions which are to be transferred to the joint county council may be delegated back to the Nairnshire County Council, but there is no guarantee in the Bill that this will take place. Therefore, I do not think that much weight can be attributed to this argument which has been put forward in support of the fact that there is no desire to interfere with the status of the county. On the contrary, it appears that Clause 12 of the Bill which deals with the setting up by the joint county council of certain statutory committees to deal with education, police, and poor relief will entirely prohibit such delegation back to the county council as has been suggested. The Secretary of State, in a letter, has said that it is not his
desire or intention that the status of the county as an independent unit in local government should be materially affected, but, in view of the fact that these very important services are to be transferred, it is difficult to see how that argument can be supported. It will require a good deal of explanation in order to set at rest the local feeling on this subject.
Secondly, on the joint county council which it is proposed to set up, Nairn will always be very much in the minority. Under the proposals of representation of county councils, Command Paper 3263, the representation allotted to Morayshire would be 35, whereas Nairnshire would have a total of 12 members. It is natural, therefore, that the people of Nairnshire should be doubtful as to the reasons why their status is not to be materially affected by this proposal. I realise that already counties do combine for certain purposes, for example, in regard to a medical officer of health. This is purely a voluntary combination, because it suits both parties to enter into it. It is a very different matter from forcing an amalgamation upon two counties. After all, in any case, where they are forced or where they are compelled to do a thing, it is much more likely to lead to trouble, and the work will be considerably increased in volume.
It is also claimed that economy may be effected by this proposal. I should like to point out that there is going to be an additional expense in setting up this new body. According to the figures furnished by the White Paper, there will be a saving, as a result of the amalgamation, of 5d. per head of the population in Nairnshire. With a population of 8,790, I estimate that the saving will come to about £183 per year. If you are going to set up a new county council with the expenses incurred thereby, such as the clerk, the treasurer, and various other officials, I think it is clear that that saving of £183 which is suggested would very soon be turned into a very severe loss. It is very difficult to see how any saving worth speaking of is going to be effected in this way. Speaking personally, and as a member for both counties, I have found considerable duplication of work in already being on two county councils, and, whoever is my successor and has the honour to represent
Moray and Nairn, when I have lost my seat as a result of this Clause or else been forced into bankruptcy owing to the severe cost of dealing with all the correspondence I have received on the matter, will find, instead of having two county councils to deal with, he will have three. This certainly does not tend by any means that I can see to simplify the work.
4.0 p.m.
I have stated that on the ground of public health amalgamation is desirable, but I suggest, if necessary, that this could be effected by making an Order under Clause 11 of the Bill for an amalgamation for the purposes of public health. I do not admit that this is necessary, because the health services have been adequately maintained in the past. Both the county and the burgh of Nairn are served at present by a voluntary hospital and by district nursing services. This should not be discounted, because it is voluntary and is not a burden on the rates. It shows, on the other hand, their sense of the importance of this matter and their independence. Although there is no formal scheme for dealing with tubercular cases, adequate provision is made in this respect. In connection with maternity and child welfare, there is a district nursing service and an arrangement with local doctors to attend in case a child is ill. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily on this subject. I have already had copious correspondence with the Secretary of State on the question, and I think he is well aware of the attitude which the county of Nairn has adopted. I would ask him, in conclusion, to accept this Amendment on the grounds that I have stated, namely, that this provision in the Bill is not wanted, and has not been asked for; secondly, that it is difficult to see how any economy is going to be effected; and, thirdly, that the Amendment will in no way wreck the Bill, for if anything, I submit, it would be a simplification of the Bill, and any amalgamation of certain services which is thought to be necessary, can well be carried out under Clause 11. I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider this matter very carefully before refusing to accept my Amendment.

Sir JAMES GRANT: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend who has proposed the Amendment told us that if it were not accepted he would lose his seat. That would be a result which would be very deeply deplored in his constituency, and I do not anticipate any such disaster. I quite understand that when this question was shortly discussed in Committee, my right hon. Friend indicated that he did not desire to accept any such Amendment as that which had been put. Undoubtedly it runs counter to the main principles of the Bill, and the desire of my right hon. Friend to extend the areas of administration. My hon. Friend and myself have no quarrel with the general proposition to enlarge areas of administration. We quite realise that it will generally be of advantage. But my right hon. Friend will admit that a provision of this kind may possibly, and will probably, act with disadvantage, and even with injustice to certain minor localities. We hold that Nairnshire comes into such category, and although an extension of boundaries might be a good thing, we shall receive no advantage from it in Nairnshire. On the contrary, we believe it will be a disadvantage in that county. My right hon. Friend will also admit that although the advice he received from his Department may be excellent, and no doubt is, he may receive better advice and a more correct view from those who live in a locality affected by this Bill, and if this suggestion holds in this instance, my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment, for the Amendment expresses the unanimous view of Nairnshire.
We resent the imposition of this amalgamation. We have not asked for it; we do not desire it, and, in our opinion, we do not require it. Surely the opinion of those who have lived in the locality all their lives, those who have taken part in public and local affairs should be considered. It is not too much to say that we view this amalgamation with real apprehension and even indignation. The county council of Nairn has acted since its inception with efficiency. It has carried out the whole of the requirements of the county. It has provided or arranged for all public requirements to the complete satisfaction of its constituents. I quite realise that, in dealing with this question, we are dealing with the future, and
not with the past, and the point we have to decide is whether under amalgamation the local administration of Nairnshire would be more effective or better. We do not think it will. We think that the new requirements can all be met under the provisions of Clause 11. We cannot see why the control of our local administration should be taken away from us when we can effectively deal with it under the provisions of that Clause.
My hon. Friend has referred to the question of finance. It is undoubtedly the basis of the subject. It is the desire of my right hon. Friend to spread the area of extra expenditure over a larger valuation, and it is also his desire to extend the area of administration. The former seems to me the best standard. I should like to ask him why he considers, as he apparently does under the Bill, that Shetland, with a gross valuation less than Nairnshire, can in the future carry on under the reduced valuation better than can the county of Nairn? Does my right hon. Friend consider that we in Nairnshire are more incapable?

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: He does not put it so bluntly.

Sir J. GRANT: Another point is the geographical point. Our county councillors, in carrying out their duties, have to go to the capital town of Nairn, and on the day of the county council meeting there is the ordinary weekly market where our county councillors can carry out their private business as well as their public duties. Under the Bill, if there is amalgamation, they will have to go to Elgin for their public duties. It may seem a small point, but it is a real grievance, and has to be taken into consideration. We want the best men we have had on our county council, and I do not believe that they will continue to give their public services. It will be a great disability to our county. In the opinion of leaders of our county council in Nairnshire, it is felt that amalgamation will bring about friction, which has never existed in our local affairs. It will be cumbersome in its operation, and we believe it will entail upon Nairnshire an unnecessary financial burden. I think some consideration ought to be given to those who really know more about the subject than anyone else. I hope, therefore,
my right hon. Friend will give favourable consideration to the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sure that the House, as I do, will realise the interest which my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have taken in this problem, and I, myself, as Minister am very conscious, of course, of the numerous representations which have been made to me upon this point. I hope to be able to show to my hon. Friends and the House that we are not seeking to make this combination out of malice, or with any other desire than to confer upon the inhabitants of these two counties the best opportunities of the future development of the services which are necessary to their well-being. When one has to consider this problem of dealing with the larger services, let me remind my hon. Friends that this combination is only to have effect for the purposes for which small burghs are to be included within the county, that is, the major services of education, poor relief, public health, police and classified roads. Outside those particular problems the county of Nairn will continue to operate and be in being as it is to-day.
There is, I think, a measure of misconception, if I may say so, in the minds of some of those in the locality as to what is really meant, and they will find that a good many of their misapprehensions, as I will explain, are due to the fact that they have not really studied what these alterations mean. As my hon. Friend said, they will retain the ancient name of their county, and nothing will alter that. They will retain their Lord Lieutenant and their county council, and they will continue to control and operate all matters relating purely to their landward areas. If we look at the problem of population, Nairnshire, including the burgh of Nairn, has a population amounting to only 8,790, and the County of Kinross one of 7,963. Those are the two instances of counties in Scotland which we are seeking to combine, and if one were not to combine these two very small counties, what indeed would be the justification for combining a great number of the burghs which we are combining under this Bill. There are only two counties with a population of less than 20,000 which are not being combined. One of these is Sutherland with
a population of over 17,000, or double that of Nairn, and the other is Peebles with a population of 15,000, which again is much higher than the population of Nairn.
If I turn to the problem of Nairnshire when the de-rating takes effect, the House will observe, that a rate of a penny per £ will produce in the landward area of that county £84. When that figure is stated it is evident that it is practically impossible for such a unit to carry on a large part of the necessary development of such services as health and education. It is said, of course, that Nairn is going to lose because of the inconvenience which will be caused by county councillors having to attend meetings in Elgin instead of Nairn. All I would say on that is that I think if any inconvenience of a personal nature arises from this circumstance, it will be found to be minor compared with the great advantages which are going to accrue to the county. Further, I would point out to my hon. Friend that in this Clause which we are discussing paragraph (f) says:
Subject to the provisions of their administrative schemes, the joint county council may delegate any of their functions to the county council of either county as if such council were a committee of the joint county council.
Those are very wide powers, and I do not doubt that they will be used by the county council, and that it will be found that a very large part of the work which Nairnshire will have to carry out in the future will be delegated and that they will only require to go to Elgin for their special meetings on comparatively few occasions. A precedent exists for such a combination as the one proposed. When the National Health Insurance system was introduced, Nairn and Moray were combined. In the matter of health services, I find that in the county of Nairn there is no county scheme for the treatment of tuberculosis and none for maternity and child welfare service.

Mr. STUART: They have no formal scheme as regards tuberculosis, but adequate provision is made to meet cases which arise with regard to maternity and child welfare, the work is done by voluntary associations, and they have an arrangement with local doctors to attend in cases of childbirth.

Sir J. GILMOUR: That may be so, but that does not alter the fact that when the general scheme comes into operation throughout the country the health services which are essential and necessary do not exist at the present time there. The medical officer of health and the school medical officer are obtained by combination with Moray. Treatment for venereal disease is also provided by a combination with other areas. It has been argued that with regard to tuberculosis the conditions in this case are such as would scarcely justify a formal scheme for treatment, but that is hardly borne out by the facts. During the five years 1923–27 there were 37 deaths from tuberculosis, and 12 cases were notified in the landward part of the county in the three years 1925–26–27, and there were 12 cases notified in the burgh of Nairn in 1926–27. There is no institution either in the county or in the burgh of Nairn for the treatment of early or advanced cases of tuberculosis. It may be said that those on the spot think that they are doing sufficient for the purpose, but I hope they will find that when the combination takes place they will be in a position of advantage and will be able greatly to increase these services. As regards maternity and child welfare, the county of Moray has adopted a scheme, whereas Nairn has not, although the conditions of the two counties are not dissimilar. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) has told us that the question of maternity and child welfare is being dealt with by voluntary associations. I am willing to admit that that meets the position to some extent.
Let me turn to the health of the school population. As regards the school health administration, the position in Nairn is less complete than that made by Moray, especially as regards dental treatment and treatment of the ear, nose and throat. I do not wish to point out these things with respect to Nairn in a derogatory way, but it is right that they should realise to the full that what I am asking is that they shall combine for the improvement of these services by coming into line with the neighbouring county. It is said that the county will make a loss financially by this amalgamation. I do not think they will be able to maintain that position. If the two counties are left separate, Moray would gain under
the scheme 70d. per head of population, and Nairn County 65d. per head, whereas the united county would gain 70d. per head. So that Nairnshire would gain 5d. per head from the union. Whether it is to be a forced union or not, I should say that from the point of view of the ratepayers it is a desirable union.
I am asked why I insist upon this amalgamation, whereas in the case of Shetland I do not so insist. The answer is twofold. In the first place, the population of Shetland is something like 20,000.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 25,000.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Twenty five thousand as compared with a population of something like 8,000 in Nairn. Moreover, Shetland is surrounded by sea, and there is the impossbility of combining it with other places. I hope very sincerely that, on further reflection, my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to show to those who are feeling sore about this matter, that it will be materially to their advantage that this combination should take place, that there is nothing derogatory to their ancient traditions and nothing which impinges or takes away from the position which Nainshire has always rightly held in Scotland. I hope that the last thing that will happen will be that any action of mine will result in the disappearance of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: We all appreciated the admirable speech made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) in defence of the privileges of his constituents. I do not feel that the Secretary of State has given any adequate answer to the points which the hon. Member and the Seconder of the Amendment brought forward. He does not meet the point that if there is any difficulty in the existing health services it can be dealt with under Clause 11, or outside the ambit of the Bill by firm leadership and voluntary understanding between the parties concerned. I refuse to believe that the people of Nairn, once they realise, if it be a fact, that the figures for tuberculosis, which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, are worse in their county than in other counties similarly situated, would allow that slur to rest on the county. They would be the first to insist that it should be remedied, either by action in the county or, if that was impossible, by agreement with the county
of Moray, so that by voluntary means a more efficient system of health management could be introduced.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the low valuation which will be left in Moray and Nairn if they remain separate. He says that a penny rate in Nairnshire will only raise £83 and that that would make it impossible for the county of Nairn to develop its services adequately in future under the provisions of the Bill. What about the counties of Orkney and Shetland? Whereas Nairnshire will only have £83 return from a penny rate, the county of Orkney will only have a return of £73 and the county of Shetland only £68. Therefore, by the Secretary of State's own criterion we have a condemnation of this Bill as applied to such counties as Orkney and Shetland. The Secretary of State said that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment had not sufficiently studied what their proposals meant. I think the general feeling in the House was that they realised more keenly and more accurately how the Government's proposals will affect their constituents than the Secretary of State does.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not his intention that Nairn should lose its status. They are going to lose

the control of their five major public services. We were talking yesterday about burghs like Nairn with a considerable population, which attract at holiday seasons a very large population. We were debating how they would be absorbed into a county, and the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary assured us that these burghs would have a great say in the county. Here is one of the principal small burghs of Scotland, the burgh of Nairn, not merely losing its identity in its own county but losing it in a combination of counties, in which it will be in an insignificant minority. It seems to me that the provision for the combination of those two counties is one of the most indefensible in the Bill. The Secretary of State said that the combination was necessary, otherwise he would find it difficult to justify the combination of burghs with counties, which we have already criticised. Two blacks do not make one white. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman is a very inadequate ground on which to defend a proposition which, on its merits, is obviously indefensible. I hope that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 106.

Division No. 254.]
AYES.
[4.28 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cooper, A. Duff
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Couper, J. B.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hume, Sir G. H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Berry, Sir George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Bethel, A.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Betterton, Henry B.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. H., Skipton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Fermoy, Lord
Lamb, J. Q.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Briggs, J. Harold
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Looker, Herbert William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton
Lougher, Sir Lewis


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lumley, L. R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacIntyre, Ian


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hacking, Douglas H.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hanbury, C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Harland, A.
Margesson, Captain D.


Christie, I. A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Templeton, W. P.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ropner, Major L.
Tinne, J. A.


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Ross, R. D.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Rye, F. G.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Oakley, T.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wayland, Sir William A.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sandon, Lord
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Pennefather, Sir John
Savery, S. S.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smithers, Waldron
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Preston, William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.



Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Radford, E. A.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Bowyer.


Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser



Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Tasker, R. Inigo.



NOES.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Groves, T.
Ritson, J.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Barnes, A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bellamy, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Shield, G. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shinwell, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Clarke, A. B.
Lawson, John James
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cluse, W. S.
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Connolly, M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cove, W. G.
MacLaren, Andrew
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Crawfurd, H. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Day, Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wiggins, William Martin


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


England, Colonel A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gardner, J. P.
Owen, Major G.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Mr. James Stuart and Sir James Grant.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Purcell, A. A.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 16, to leave out from the word "for", in line 3, to the end of line 5, and to insert instead thereof the words:
every purpose for which any small burgh is by virtue of this Act included within a county and for no other purpose.
This is largely a drafting Amendment. It is in order to make it clear that only major services shall be transferred. It is thought that it would be undesirable to transfer from the burghs a matter like the registration of motor vehicles.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in in page 17, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (8).
Let me make it quite clear at once why I am moving this Amendment. We hope that much time will not be spent upon it because there are important Amendments coming on later which were not discussed during die Committee stage; for example, an Amendment dealing with house factors' remuneration, and we hope to so arrange business this afternoon that an opportunity will be found for discussing these important questions.
Therefore, I do not propose to take up much time on this proposal, because it was discussed at some length during the Committee stage, and it will arise again in a more acute form on Clause 68. I should imagine that under Clause 68 the Secretary of State can take whatever powers he chooses and that he does not require to have them repeated in this Clause. I cannot understand why he should ask for the same powers twice in the Bill. If he gets them in Clause 68, I cannot understand why he requires them in Clause 10.

Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Sub-section seems to me to be redundant. If the right hon. Gentleman contemplates passing the remainder of the Bill with the inclusion of Clause 68, then clearly there is no occasion for this Sub-section. I think he will share that view. If he will look at the Sub-section, he will find that the words are almost the same as those in Clause 68, and like my hon. Friend I am at a loss to understand why it should be necessary to have two provisions in the Bill bearing on the same point and in almost precisely the same language.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I propose to accept this Amendment. Since the Committee stage I have had time to look into it, and I see no necessity for retaining this Sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions as to combination of local authorities.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 19, line 17, after the word "the," to insert the words "gross annual or other."
This Amendment makes it clear that whatever valuation is referred to, whether it is the gross annual valuation or the rateable valuation, or any other valuation, that the new rateable value shall be substituted therefor.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In line 5, after the word "order," insert the word "made."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to insert the words "or by the Electricity Commissioners."
This is to make it clear, if there is any doubt about it, that it should be included.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Committees.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): I beg to move, in page 20, line 26, to leave out the words "Save as otherwise provided," and to insert instead thereof the words
Except where for the purpose of co-ordinating the services provided by the council it is otherwise specified.
This is to fulfil a pledge which was given during the discussion on the Committee stage and to make it clear that there is no intention of taking away by a side wind matters which have to be referred to a special Standing Committee. There may be occasions when it is desirable to refer certain matters to other committees. Take the case of playing fields. This subject might be referred to the Open Spaces Committee as well as to the Education Committee, but this does not in any way minimise the duty of the local authority to refer these matters generally to the appropriate committee. I understand that the Amendment meets with the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House who raised this question at an earlier stage of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, in line 44, at the end, to insert the words:
and the council, before exercising any function relating to such instruction shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the education committee with respect to the mutter in question.
This is really to put right an omission in the Bill; an omission by inadvertence. The House may remember that in Committee we separated the question of religious instruction from other matters and put it in a Sub-section by itself, but we omitted to carry along this provision. It is necessary to put it in again.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 21, line 30, after the word "prescribe," to insert the words:
the number of such representatives in proportion always to the number of duly constituted charges within the area, and shall prescribe.
It will be remembered that this question about the representatives of the other denominations being co-opted on to the education committees—persons interested in the promotion of religious education—was discussed previously. It undoubtedly was our intention that the meeting of representatives was to elect those persons, and was to consist of all other denominations having "duly constituted charges." We intended that the number of representatives should be in proportion to the number of charges in each denomination, but that was not quite clear in the Clause as it was drawn, and this Amendment is moved to make the matter clear. Normally the representation will be one for each charge. The Amendment will give a proper weight to the particular denomination in the area according to size. "Duly constituted charge" is a well-known ecclesiastical phrase.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Let us be clear on this point. Does the importation of this word "charge" rule out such an organisation as the Salvation Army or is the local meeting of the Salvation Army held to be a charge under the terms of the Bill?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Probably the ordinary local constitution of the Salvation Army would be ruled out, but the Army might well have a duly constituted charge. It depends on the local constitution. A charge means, in effect, having a local congregation or something corresponding to it. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) will check me if I am wrong when I say that in effect it means that you have a form of congregation. The Salvation Army, in my apprehension, do not normally have such a thing, but they do have it in certain localities. One cannot be absolute on the point, but I should imagine that ordinarily they would not have a duly constituted charge.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: Would it not mean that where the Salvation Army
have what they call a citadel, with a captain in charge, they would be included?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is the sort of thing I had in mind, but the question has been sprung upon me, and without having definite information I cannot give a definite answer.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Would it be necessary to have a combination of these citadels or would one citadel, according to the numbers attached to it, suffice?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I hope hon. Members will not think that I am objecting at all, but it is a fact that we have passed the point of deciding what constitutes a charge. I am perfectly willing to consider putting the matter right in another place if it is now wrong. I am only too anxious to get the thing right. The Salvation Army was not mentioned in the Committee stage.

Mr. MACLEAN: There seems to be much difference of opinion on this side of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman is not himself quite clear as to the implication of the Amendment. He has made the suggestion that if the Amendment embodies in the Bill what is apprehended by some of my hon. Friends he will put the matter right in another place. Can he not put it the other way, and reconsider the matter, and if it does not carry with it the implications that my hon. Friends seem to believe that it carries, he can then put the matter right in the other place?

The LORD ADVOCATE: We have passed that stage. The pertinent words occur in an earlier part of Sub-section (1), and we are at line 30 now. We have passed the stage at which we can possibly put it right in the way suggested. The "charges" ought to be represented according to their strength, according to the total number of charges. The larger church ought to have a greater number of representatives. The whole purpose of the Amendment is to make that clear. It occurred to us that there might be cases in which, if you had one representative for every charge, the meeting would be too large, and that it would be much more convenient to prescribe for a smaller meeting by providing that there should be, for instance, one representative for every three
charges. The purpose of the Amendment is merely to make clear that in settling the number of representatives the proportionate size of the different denominations concerned shall be taken into consideration. The point raised now is what are the denominations concerned? We have passed that stage. Therefore, all I can say at the moment is that we undertake to consider the matter further and, if necessary, to have some talk with hon. Members opposite about it. If we find it preferable to alter these provisions the only way in which we can do it is in another place. I cannot make a better offer than that. So far as the Amendment is concerned, surely the House will agree that it is the intention of us all that the representation at the meeting shall be in proportion to the size of the denominations concerned, whatever the denominations may ultimately be?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I trust that the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate will not press this Amendment. It has created in the minds of some of us the greatest suspicion yet created on this matter. Two Members on this side of the House carried through most of the successful negotiations in connection with an Amendment which was ultimately accepted by the Government. I happened to be one of those individuals. In discussing the question with Dr. Whyte and three other representatives of the Churches I pointed out definitely that there were Members on this side of the House who were determined to do everything possible to safeguard religious instruction in our schools in Scotland, but that they were not prepared to fight merely for the Church of Scotland having representation. The complaint on the part of the Church of Scotland and the Churches generally was that the Act of Parliament safeguarded the religious instruction of the Catholics, and the demand was that there should be on these constituted committees direct representatives of the Protestants. As an individual I have repeatedly said in this House, and say again without any shame, that all my religious connections have been with the Salvation Army. Why should I, for a moment, yield to any Dr. Whyte or anyone else associated with the Old Kirk, that they are greater Protestants than I am? They are not.
All that they were fighting for, all that they were anxious to get was direct representation of the Christian Churches and the Christian brotherhoods and the others who were associated with the Protestant form of faith in Scotland.
In discussing this matter with Dr. Whyte—no one has tried to let us down worse than the same individual—the particular claim was made that the Salvation Army was as much entitled to have representatives at the meeting convened to appoint representatives to the Education Committee, as any other organisation. The same claim was made on behalf of the Baptists who, after all, have churches. The same claim was made on behalf of the other religious denominations in Scotland that are associated with the Protestant form of religion. Now we have the claim being made by the Amendment that the more numerous the charges are, not the more numerous the members of the churches, the greater shall be their representation. In Kirkcaldy, where I live, if it was a question of membership the Old Kirk has not the same membership as the Salvation Army. In fact, if all the charges of the Old Kirk were put together, I question whether they would have the same membership as the Baptist organisation. Now the Government are going to throw into the melting pot what was an agreed Amendment, merely because a communication has been received by one Member of this House and by the Secretary of State from Dr. John Whyte. That is really the position; I am stating the fact. I know the communications that have been sent.
It is most regrettable that after we had had a most harmonious Debate in this House and that after our proposal was accepted with practical unanimity, Dr. Whyte should come along again for the purpose of demanding on behalf of the Old Kirk the maximum representation, not for the purpose of getting representatives who will be prepared to see that religious instruction is given in our schools, but because he is determined that it shall be an Old Kirk representation if it is possible by numbers to carry the matter. I trust that the Government will not press the Amendment, but will go further into the question of charges. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson)
and myself were the two individuals who carried through the negotiations and ultimately managed to get a formula accepted by the Government. For it we received no credit whatever; the Moderator or ex-Moderator was prepared to take all the kudos. I trust that we are going to get a further explanation as to what "charges" means, because Dr. Whyte and the other three representatives made it quite clear that the word "charges" would include organisations such as the Salvation Army, the Baptists, the Brethren and the other properly constituted religious organisations that we have in different parts of Scotland. That was made clear so far as I was concerned. I hope that the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland is now making it clear to his colleagues that the word "charges" does include these particular denominations.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. BARR: It seems to me that there are two questions here. The first is as to whether the word "charge" is the best word. I thoroughly corroborate what fell from the Lord Advocate that it is the usual word in the case of what we know as the ordinary church, but it is doubtful whether it is comprehensive enough to include the various religious bodies that should be represented. Reference has been made to the Salvation Army, and there are other bodies, such as the Society of Friends, which we should wish to have included. I have no doubt that the Government will consider whether there is a better word, and it seems to me it might avoid dispute in the future, even though the Solicitor-General is of the opinion that the matter would be covered, if we had words to make this perfectly clear. The second question is as to the new form of this representation. As it stands, it would simply mean that each Church in Scotland would have—I will state my own opinion—separate representation and that might not be equal to the exact proportions of the various churches.
I saw this Amendment yesterday and said, on the first sight of it, that I did not think it was one to divide against, and I am not taking up a position antagonistic, but I must say that the more I consider the Amendment the more I think the new form is very clumsy. I take it from the
Lord Advocate himself that the idea they had in their minds was one representative for every three charges. In the City of Glasgow, we have 192 charges. That means that we are going to have 65 men trying to represent the Church of Scotland—something like 50 from the United Free Church, and you have the congregationalists represented by perhaps two and the Methodists represented by four or five. I think that is a very clumsy arrangement, and I would point out that there has never been any dispute as to the particular form of religious instruction. They are united, and therefore it seems that it does not matter so much from what quarter they come. I would also point out that, supposing each church was only represented by one, the fact that the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church have that numerical preponderance would secure that representation. Therefore, while I have been very much adverse to anything like opposition in this matter, and, while I should be sorry if this were carried to a Division by this side or the other, yet I must say, when I look at it, that it does seem to me a somewhat clumsy arrangement. I think the mutual trust that should obtain between the churches should be sufficient without every church grasping at exact numerical proportions. Surely the one object in view should be unity.

Sir HARRY HOPE: Throughout Scotland there has been an extraordinary feeling of unanimity in approaching this question of the continuance of religious instruction in our schools, and that unanimity in Scotland was reflected in this House a fortnight ago when the Bill went through the Committee. Nothing that my hon. and learned Friend is doing this afternoon is in any way detracting or subtracting from that spirit. This Amendment is a very small Amendment. I originally had a little band in drafting it. I submitted it to my hon. Friends opposite, and they thought, as I thought, that it was a means of assisting the putting into practical shape of findings which were unanimously arrived at when the Bill was in Committee. Therefore, this Amendment in no way desires to reopen or to alter the agreement arrived at. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) suggested that this Amendment might have the effect of preventing the Salvation Army
from being recognised as one of the bodies coming into this scheme. The Amendment in no way takes away any rights from the Salvation Army. Recognising as I do that we want to enable all our denominations, including the Salvation Army, to come into this great work of facilitating religious instruction, I say my right hon. and learned Friend is only moving in accordance with an agreement already come to and is assisting in a practical way the working of the scheme. I do not think the Amendment would have any great effect if it were put in, but it is put forward in good faith, and that is what I am anxious for my hon. Friends to recognise.

Mr. J. BROWN: I should not have risen at all, because I could very well have left it to those who have spoken, but I certainly did not think that this Amendment would have annoyed anyone. If I thought for a moment that the Salvation Army or the Society of Friends or any Christian denomination were to be prevented from getting fair play, I would vote against the Amendment; but I do not see for the life of me, and I have looked at it from every angle, how it will prevent the Salvation Army more than now from coming into it. Everyone will agree that it is democratic. We know that the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church of Scotland are democratic, and I never thought any hon. Member would take exception to it or impart heat into it. I welcome all Christians to take part in the work that lies before us in the education of our youth in Scotland, and I think we could easily be content with the promise of the Lord Advocate that, if there is any dispute regarding those who are to be called together to elect the representatives, he will see that it is put right in another place.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The only point here is the interpretation of the word "charge." As I understand the Lord Advocate, he intends to make that interpretation cover any religious body. From the statement the right hon. and learned Gentleman made, I felt that he had given us an undertaking to avoid misinterpretation and misunderstanding. We do not want to have any misunderstanding when it is too late, and, if we have a definite undertaking and it is
scheduled, that is all that is required. The word employed in the Bill is "body."

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask one question? I received the guarantee on the Committee stage and I only want to have it repeated here. I, as everybody knows, represent a constituency which holds the largest proportion of Jews in Glasgow. I do not know whether the word "charge" is suitable. The Government bring in a thing in good faith, and then somebody of a quibbling type of mind goes to the Court of Session and upsets it. I am anxious, not to safeguard the honour of the Lord Advocate, which is not in danger, but the legal interpretation of what may become a dangerous thing, apart from the legal aspect of it. Would it apply to the Jewish community? Once you proceed on democratic lines, they must be thoroughly democratic. Nobody would deny that to-day charges have altered completely. There are some charges that are packed to the door, and others that are empty. I do not say it in depreciation of other religious bodies, but, if it came to the actual numbers of membership, which ought to be the truly democratic way in charges—like the membership of trade unions—I would say that it must rest on the basis of a great amount of give and take.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I assure the House that I had no intention or idea, that, by this Amendment, I was likely to disturb any settlement or agreement which had been reached on this subject. There are two questions directly affected by this Amendment. As to the first one, I may read what the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) said during the Committee stage discussion:
The Churches themselves, as a result of the discussion which took place either on Tuesday or Wednesday, agreed that these representatives were to be not merely representatives of the Churches but representatives of the other denominations which have charges in the respective areas, so that under the Amendment which has been submitted by the Lord Advocate not only will representatives of the orthodox Church—the Free Church, the Established Church and the others—but also representatives of the Salvation Army or of any other constituted denomination having a charge in a particular area be called to the meeting from which the nomination is made of representatives on the education committee."—[OFFICIAL
REPORT, 7th February, 1929; cols. 2008–2009, Vol. 224.]
I still maintain, with some confidence, that if the representatives of the Salvation Army or any other constituted denomination have a charge in a particular area, they come within the terms of this Clause. Doubts have been raised as to this matter, however, and all the Government can undertake to do is to look carefully into it and to make sure that we are covering every one that we wish to cover. In the case of the Salvation Army, if they have a station or a post—[HON. MEMBERS: "A citadel!"]—or a citadel, or any kind of fixed centre from which they are working in the district, I think it is the intention of the House that that should be included.
The second question is the question of whether the representation at these meetings is to be one for each denomination or is to be in proportion to the number of charges. I think there is no dispute that what was intended was that the representation should correspond to the size of the church as shown by the number of charges. But when I came to look again at the actual wording, it seemed clear to me that that wording left it open to draw the scheme either way—either as allowing one representative for each church, or as allowing representation in proportion to the number of charges. The purpose of the Amendment is that the intention should be defined more accurately. If, however, the present Amendment is going to raise any doubt or difficulty about the settlement which has been arrived at, I certainly am not going to press it. I would prefer to leave the wording as it is. I think it a pity that we could not have a clearer definition on this point but, as I say, I have no desire to create any difficulties and as I understand it is not the desire of the House that the Amendment should be pressed, I would, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 21, line 32, leave out the words "including also."

In page 23, line 4, leave out the words "not less than two-thirds," and insert
instead thereof the words "a minimum number."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Power of delegation by county councils.)

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to move, in page 23, line 27, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
It is obvious from the wording of the Clause that it is the intention of the Government that this delegation of authority should take place. With that idea, no doubt many county councillors and town councillors will agree. But we are setting up here a new county authority. It will be an authority not quite sure of itself in many cases. It will be an authority, largely without predispositions and largely ignorant of its own powers. We shall have that authority on the one side, and on the other side the town councils with their traditions, their local knowledge, and experience of the various services gained during many years of working. I think it would be to the advantage of the burghs and the people of Scotland if this delegation of authority were made compulsory, and—although the Amendment does not provide for this—I think it should at least be made compulsory for one year, until the powers of the new county councils become so clearly defined that there will be no possibility of trouble arising or of the people of the burghs suffering from failure to delegate powers.

Major PRICE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not find it necessary to press the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment is not as he has described it, and I notice that his seconder, evidently realising the fact, has left the House. To import the word "shall" in this line would not make the Clause mandatory. Let me read the sentence as it would run if amended in the way suggested.
A county council shall, on such terms and conditions as the councils concerned may agree, appoint…to act as the agents of the county council," etc.
That means nothing. Supposing the councils concerned did not agree, this would produce at once an administrative deadlock. Apart from the fact that
the Amendment does not achieve the object which the hon. and gallant Member desires, I do not think that object is in itself a desirable one. The fact that the Amendment would lead to an administrative deadlock and that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not found it possible to resolve that deadlock by introducing any subsequent words, shows the great difficulty of the proposal and in these circumstances I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 14.—(Schemes for administration of functions.)

Amendment made:

In page 24, line 22, leave out the words "roads, but that only in the case of a county council," and insert instead thereof the words "in the case of a county council, roads."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 24, line 27, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that the council in preparing the administrative scheme so far as relating to education shall consult with the education authority of the area.
This Amendment carries out a pledge which I gave on the fourth day of the Committee stage to the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) to accept the principle requiring the county council or town council to consult with the education authority.

Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: On a point of Order. I have down an Amendment to the Amendment which I hope I may be allowed to explain, at least to the Chair.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member will have an opportunity when we reach his Amendment to Amendment. At present, we are dealing with the original Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State.

Mr. BENN: I was only anxious that my Amendment should be preserved.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Amendment referred only to the education committees of the large burghs? I think the undertaking given was that all outgoing education authorities should be
taken into consultation, either by the county council in the one case, or the county of a city in the other case, in the framing of these schemes.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This covers the county areas as well as the others.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I only raised the question, because I thought the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the large cities. So long as I have that assurance it will be unnecessary for me to move the Amendment which stands in my name—in page 25, line 42, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that the administrative scheme, so far as it relates to education, shall be framed by the county council or the town council, as the case may be, in consultation with the existing education authority for the area to which such scheme shall apply.
I take it, however, that the Amendment now moved by the Government is carrying out that pledge.

Sir J. GILMOUR: For every one which has to prepare a scheme.

Mr. BENN: The Amendment which I have put down to the right hon. Gentleman's proposed Amendment is to leave out the words "education shall consult with the education authority of the area," and to insert instead thereof the words
the said functions may make provision for making applicable to such functions the statutory provisions in force prior to the passing of this Act relating to the audit of the accounts of such council.
As a matter of order, perhaps it would be more convenient that I should state briefly the Aberdeen case as regards the Amendment on the Motion to leave out Clause 15. May I ask you, Sir, in advance, if you will put the Amendment to leave out Clause 15, and perhaps I should save time by not moving my Amendment to the present Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman. I understood that he wanted to move the Amendment to the Amendment which stands in his name on page 816.

Mr. BENN: That is so, but there are two ways of doing it. One is by moving to introduce the proposed words here. The other is by raising the point on the Amendment to leave out Clause 15. If I am likely to be so fortunate to catch
your eye on the Question to leave out Clause 15, I should be satisfied not to move my Amendment to this Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot, of course, give the hon. Member any guarantee as to exactly what will happen in the further course of the Debate, but, as far as I can see, there is no reason why he should not have an opportunity, in the ordinary course, of moving to leave out Clause 15, bearing in mind, of course, the guillotine Resolution.

Mr. BENN: Then I do not move my Amendment to the proposed Amendment. Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel MOORE):

In page 24, line 38, at the end, to insert the words:
The administrative scheme of a county in which is situated any of the following burghs frequented as holiday resorts, namely, Ardrossan, Dunoon, Gourock, Irvine, North Berwick, Oban, Prestwick, Rothesay, Saltcoats, and Troon shall provide for the delegation by the county council concerned to the town council of any such burgh of their functions relating to public health and classified roads 60 far as the same are exerciseable within such burgh, and that upon such terms and conditions as the county council and the town council concerned may agree and, failing agreement, as the central department may determine.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: This Amendment is more or less the same as one that was debated last night and negatived, and, therefore, I do not move it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We are very glad to hear that, after the speech which the hon. and gallant Member made yesterday.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 26, line 21, after the word "newspapers," to insert the words "published or."

This is a consequential Amendment on one previously moved.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Before we leave Clause 14, I want to ask a question on it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot ask a general question on a Clause on the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Audit and accounts.)

Mr. BENN: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
I do so, not because I desire to destroy the provisions as to audit in the Bill, but in order to draw attention to the very remarkable increase which is being sought by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his powers to audit the accounts of the big cities, and particularly of the City of Aberdeen, part of which I have the honour to represent. The situation at present is this, that the audit of Aberdeen is carried out under a Provisional Order of 1915. We have three auditors—not one, as stated by the Minister—who are appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The local Aberdeen newspaper said I said so, but the OFFICIAL REPORT said the contrary, and correctly. It was Dundee, not Aberdeen, that I spoke of.

Mr. BENN: I was under the impression that the Minister said it, but I apologise. The audit they make is quite satisfactory, and there is no complaint about it. No one has ever said that the accounts of Aberdeen are not well audited and that the whole city is not thriftily managed. Now comes along the Secretary of State for Scotland, and for no possible reason whatever proposes to co-ordinate or assimilate the management of the finances of the City of Aberdeen with a general scheme which has absolutely no application to our special case. I cannot conceive of the ground he has for doing so. He is, first of all, securing the right of surcharge and, further, the power to audit accounts which have nothing on earth to do with him. When this Bill has been passed, the expenditure of the City of Aberdeen will be about £1,600,000 a year, of which £1,500,000 will be money that is not grant-aided in any shape or form, and part of which will be the Common Good, which is even independent of the rating assessment. What justification can there be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to insist upon the right of audit and surcharge of these matters, which are no concern of his whatever, but purely the concern of the citizens of Aberdeen?
We are unlike a county council. Something might be said for altering the audit of county council acounts, but, so far as Aberdeen is concerned, we have, in addition to the ordinary county services, such trading departments as gas, electricity, water, tramways, parks, sewers, the Common Good, and our Art Gallery. What the citizens of Aberdeen say—and I am speaking with the authority of the Treasurer of the City—is, "Why should we surrender to the Secretary of State for Scotland and a Government Department—because that is what it means—these powers over matters with which they have no concern and to which they make no contribution from the Exchequer?" The present system is going on with complete satisfaction to the citizens of the city, and the change is proposed for no reason whatever by the Government, and I think it is the duty of the Lord Advocate, if he can, to give some reason for this much resented increase of bureaucratic powers in this and other cases.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to second the the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Benn) has spoken entirely of Aberdeen. Our proposal is that the general code of audit should be applied right through Scotland to the local authorities. I said on the Committee stage that a distinction existed between county and burgh accounts. The accounts that are least like those of a county at present are those of the City of Glasgow, who, subject to the Amendments we have put down, are perfectly content to come under the code which is proposed, and who would have stronger reasons for objecting to it than the City of Aberdeen. I have seen the City of Aberdeen. I had an interview with them about something else, and they never said a word about the audits previous to my—

Mr. BENN: Since when have we had the new constitutional doctrine that the place in which to raise objections is in a public Department and not in the House of Commons?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The Report stage in the House of Commons is a little late for raising objections which are so strong and which have been so long felt, according to the hon. Member.

Mr. BENN: But is the Lord Advocate not perfectly aware that under the Guillotine it is impossible for Scotland to raise any objections?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, I am not aware of it at all. The present state of Aberdeen is that, under its own Provisional Order, the appointment of auditors, whether there are to be one or more, is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, therefore, there is no change in that respect. I think the hon. Member will agree that the only substantial change, apart from the education accounts, will be the right of surcharge, and the general view is—and I spoke about this last time, and dealt with it in the House—that, generally speaking, the right of the ratepayers to inspect accounts and to take objection to them is not a satisfactory method of check, and that the right of surcharge is the more valuable method. That is founded on general experience, and I do not agree that this method of making effective the control of an auditor with regard to illegal expenditure is bureaucracy at all. It gives full opportunity for the defence of the alleged illegality, and I cannot see that anyone who has the public interest at heart can validly take any objection to it.
Aberdeen is getting grants. Public money is going to Aberdeen from the Exchequer in increased quantities, and through the grant going in the form of a pooled sum, on the one hand, the central authority does not require to maintain the same close supervision of the local authority as it used to have to do when grants were made for specific purposes. That is one of the advantages of the reforms proposed in this Bill, but surely the central Department is entitled to have some independent, separate check with regard generally to the question of expenditure, and that is done by the surcharge, both in the interests of the taxpayer and of the local ratepayer. I submit that when you find that the local authorities, the burghs generally, are quite content to accept this code, while, of course, every burgh is entitled to have its own opinion, there is nothing very outrageous, as the hon. Member suggested, in making a uniform code, as we have done in this Bill. I may say that the block grant to Aberdeen will amount to between £112,000 and £113,000.

Mr. BENN: Out of a total expenditure of what?

The LORD ADVOCATE: What has the total expenditure to do with it? That is a very substantial sum, and it should entitle the central authority to have an adequate audit.

Mr. BENN: It is one-sixteenth of the expenditure, and puts us in the clutches of the bureaucracy.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate said, or it was said, not once but on several occasions throughout the Debate on this Bill and the Bill dealing with the same thing with regard to England, that one of the objects of the Measures was to give greater power and control to the local authorities and to take away from the central authority some of that control which they had exercised previously. [Interruption.] I know the Lord Advocate will bear with me in my lack of understanding, but that is what was said, but now we are being told the opposite. I am not disagreeing with it at all, but I want to point out what seems to me to be a contradiction. The local authorities were to get greater power and were to be less meddled with by the central authority, but now we are told that something of the opposite is to obtain and that greater powers will go to the central authority, of course, in the interests of the ratepayers.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Over illegal expenditure.

Mr. STEWART: I have had some experience of illegal expenditure, and I know that what is illegal expenditure under one administration may become legal under another, or vice versa. That happens occasionally, according to the reasoning powers of the gentleman who happens to be Secretary of State or who has control for the moment.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would recall one point to the mind of the Lord Advocate, and that is that his own Government once had to ask this House to pass an Act of Parliament because of an administrative expenditure which had been incurred at the instance of the Scottish Office.

The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Lord Advocate shakes his head, but there was the case of the illegal expenditure incurred by the parish councils, and I myself thought that the administration was quite right in going on with that expenditure, but afterwards, when the Court, came to a decision on the matter, there had to be an Act of Parliament passed by this House, an Act of indemnity, in connection with that matter. I do not think the Lord Advocate ought to get away with it in that fashion. I believe, also, that from time to time similar circumstances have arisen in connection with health services, that is to say, that in view of the needs of the people the executive have decided to undertake expenditure for which there was no legal sanction and afterwards come to Parliament for an indemnity. Possibly the Lord Advocate is rather irritated because I have recalled this, thinking it may not be pertinent to this subject, but I am only quoting it as an illustration of what people who sit on the Treasury Bench may do. He has pooh-poohed our complaint and has spoken of "illegal expenditure" as though it were always a great crime. A local authority may be put into a position similar to that in which the Government have occasionally found themselves, and incur expenditure which is not strictly within their powers in the hope that the central Government may afterwards pass an Act of Parliament to indemnify them.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 17.—(Payment of travelling expenses by county councils, etc.)

Amendment made:

In page 27, line 29, after the word "by," insert the words "order made by."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 18.—(Rates related to transferred functions.)

Amendment made:

In page 28, line 31, leave out the words "relative to the aforesaid expenses," and insert instead thereof the words "so far as inconsistent herewith."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Mr. BARR: I beg to move, in page 29, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (5).
I will explain shortly the difficulty which has arisen in regard to certain
public libraries. In the Education Act of 1918 there was a proviso that education authorities in counties, as an ancillary means of promoting education, could provide books by purchase or otherwise, and that those books should not only be of benefit to the children for whom they were first obtained but also be available for the adult population resident in the area. The education authorities were empowered to make arrangements with public libraries, and all the expenses of this particular form of library were to be chargeable to the education authorities, but subject to a certain proviso. I think it would be as well to read the proviso, which is rather confusing:
Provided that in any burgh or parish as defined by the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act, 1887, the library rate by that Act authorised is levied, there shall be raised within such burgh or parish on account of any such expenses such sum as will, with the produce of the said library rate, amount to the sum which would have been raised within such burgh or parish under this Section had such library rate not been levied within it.
I think I can make that clear to the House. The Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1887, allowed the levy of a rate of 1d. in the pound. Under the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act, 1920, that sum was raised to 3d. I will take the case of a burgh—my own or any other burgh—having an ordinary library rate of 2d. and I will suppose that the education rate for this special purpose is 3d. in the pound. The effect of the proviso which the Government are now proposing to delete is that that particular burgh would only pay up to 3d. in the pound, that is to say, it would pay the 2d. it pays as a library rate and 1d. in addition; but if we take away that proviso it would mean that instead of being rated at 3d. in the pound it would be rated at 5d. in the pound. That is how I interpret it, and I think I have interpreted it correctly.
I would adduce one or two illustrations of why we should maintain this proviso. In 1918, when this system was established, a definite promise was made that there would never be a double burden such as will now fall if we eliminate the proviso. The Government may reply that if they take it away there will be an urge on those communities to come into line with the county as a whole and with its arrangements. I believe this is what is behind it, that there is a desire to have
a flat rate for the county as a whole, but I do not think that that is a sufficient answer to the injustice which we shall be doing to a burgh. The argument about a flat rate and securing absolute uniformity all round has been so constantly brought up here that it is becoming weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. The action of the Government will penalise the burghs and areas which have been the most progressive. During the last two or three days we have heard from hon. Members advertisements of a great many towns—Saltcoats, Ardrossan, Rothesay, Dunoon and Oban. I would like to take the opportunity of advertising my own town of Motherwell. It has not an esplanade, as some of these other places have, but I would say of the towns I have named that if you put them all together they do not make up one Motherwell. All I am asking is that towns which have gone ahead, relying on a definite promise made in 1918, should not be penalised for their progressiveness, and that a proviso which I regard as being in the nature of a debt of honour should not now be taken away on the plea of the necessity for securing uniformity.

Mr. W. M. WATSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I realise that this is a question which is of great interest to a large number of burghs as well as county areas. It seems to us that the arrangement we propose is really the most suitable one. What we are, in effect, doing is to leave with the existing burghs the libraries which they already possess, because we do not desire to take away from them institutions in which they have a considerable interest. It might be justifiable in the common interest, eventually, to bring the whole of those institutions under one authority, but we do not think, even in the cause of efficiency, that that time has yet arrived. The hon. Member has said that under our scheme a burgh, in place of being charged only an extra 1d., might be charged the full 3d., but they can avoid that calamity if they enter into an agreement with the education authority. I think that the libraries now existing in the burghs will tend to form centres, distributing points, for much larger areas, and it may be that under a system of co-operation with the education
authorities we may engage more largely in the distribution of books by motors. It is just because we desire to leave with existing burghs the institutions in which they are so much interested, and to keep open the door for a measure of co-operation, that we think

it would be unwise to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 104.

Division No. 255.]
AYES.
[5.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nuttall, Ellis


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Ganzoni, Sir John
Oakley, T.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Gates, Percy
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton
Pennefather, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, C.
Goff, Sir Park
Power, Sir John Cecil


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Balniel, Lord
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Preston, William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Radford, E. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Remer, J. R.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Hammersley, S. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hanbury, C.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harland, A.
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Ross, R. D.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briggs, J. Harold
Haslam, Henry C.
Rye, F. G.


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandon, Lord


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Burman, J. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Smithers, Waldron


Campbell, E. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Storry-Deans, F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Chapman, Sir S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Tasker, R. Inigo


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Templeton, W. P.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cooper, A. Duff
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Couper, J. B.
Looker, Herbert William
Tinne, J. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lumley, L. R.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
MacIntyre, Ian
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dalkeith, Earl of
McLean, Major A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Ellis, R. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth



Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)



Forrest, W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, T. W.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hardie, George D.
Shield, G. W.


Barr, J.
Mayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Batty, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shinwell, E.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Buchanan, G.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Cape, Thomas
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Clarke, A. B.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cluse, W. S.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Townend, A. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Maxton, James
Viant, S. P.


Compton, Joseph
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cove, W. G.
Montague, Frederick
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dalton, Hugh
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Dennison, R.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Owen, Major G.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Griffith, F. Kingsley
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Groves, T.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

CLAUSE 20.—(Amendment of 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 53, s. 7 (6).)

Mr. STEPHEN: Owing to the operation of the Guillotine Resolution we had no opportunity of discussing this Clause during the Committee stage. There is some doubt as to whether this Clause is in order, and I have consulted Mr. Speaker, who suggested to me that I should raise the question as to whether this Clause is in order or not. Mr. Speaker told me that after the Minister had replied he would be in a position to give a Ruling. Hon. Members on this side were ruled out of order upon a similar Clause not long ago, because it did not come within the scope of the Bill. The preamble to the Bill sets out the various matters with which the Bill proposes to deal
To transfer to county councils and to the town councils of certain burghs in Scotland functions of existing local authorities relating to poor relief, lunacy and mental deficiency, education, public health, and other matters; to amend the law relating to local government in Scotland; to grant relief from rates in the case of the lands and heritages in Scotland to which the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, applies; to discontinue grants from the Exchequer for certain purposes in Scotland and to provide other grants in lieu thereof; and for purposes consequential on the matters aforesaid.
This Clause proposes to amend Subsection (6) of Section 7 of the House Letting and Eating (Scotland) Act, 1911, which states:
Every assessing authority shall, in respect of the occupancy of small dwelling houses, allow to owners from all occupiers' assessments levied on and recovered from them in place of the occupiers (less any repayments in pursuance of a claim under this Section) a deduction, to cover cost of collection, on the following scale.
I submit that, in accordance with the ruling given yesterday that a proposal for the transference of rates under the 1920 Act was out of order, this Clause is quite outwith the scope of this Bill as indicated in those words. To give certain commissions to the factors in connection with the collection of rates has nothing to do with any transference of duties to the county council, amending the law relating to local government in Scotland, or granting relief from rates, and it is out of order because it involves an increase in rates. There is nothing in the Preamble to this Bill which allows the inclusion of a Clause of this kind. On a previous occasion when an English Bill was before this House, hon. Members endeavoured to get a Clause of this kind included and Mr. Speaker ruled that it could not be included because it involved
a charge. This Clause was originally put down in the names of Private Members and not in the name of the Government, and it was afterwards taken over by the Government. In the first instance this Clause stood in the name of the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. R. MacDonald) and three other hon. Members, and the Government were so long making up their minds to take it over that the local authorities had no opportunity of making representations in regard to this proposal. The corporation of Glasgow have intimated to the Lord Advocate personally, or at any rate to the Secretary of State for Scotland—

The LORD ADVOCATE: I have had a deputation from them.

Mr. STEPHEN: Before the corporation of Glasgow were able to interview the Lord Advocate, some of us tried to get an indication from the Government as to whether they were going to accept this Clause which stood in the names of some Private Members, and we were unable to get any information even the day before it was taken over by the Government.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I understood that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was raising a point of order. Would it not be better if we disposed of that question first?

Mr. STEPHEN: On that point of order I should like to say a word or two. I think I have been following out your advice, Mr. Speaker, that I should first raise the question as to whether the Clause was in order, and that after the Minister had replied you would give your ruling. I am quite willing that the point of order should be dealt with before discussing the merits of the Clause.

The LORD ADVOCATE: If the Clause is out of order, it requires no Amendment to take it away. It seems to me that it would be right to dispose of the point of Order before we discuss the Amendment, and I should like to speak on the point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am prepared to give a ruling if the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is raising his point of Order now. I thought that he was going to raise it at the beginning of his speech, before actually moving the exclusion
of the Clause. My advice to him was that he should allow the Lord Advocate an opportunity of speaking on the point of Order.

Mr. STEPHEN: Yes, Sir, that will suit me perfectly, and I will confine myself strictly to the point of Order. I think I have put to you the main point in regard to this Clause, namely, that it does not come within the scope of the Bill as set out in the Preamble. It seems to me that the only part of the Preamble which might afford a shadow of ground for its insertion is that which says:
to amend the law relating to local government in Scotland.
It would, however, seem to me to be a tremendous forcing of the position to try to bring it in there as amending the law relating to local government. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the same wide interpretation as to amending the law relating to local government in Scotland would also have applied in connection with the Act of 1920 and the Clause to which we drew attention originally. I would like to have your ruling on that point.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I shall have no difficulty at all on this point of Order. The local authority, in order to carry on its government, has to levy rates to pay for the expenditure. Having levied rates, it has to collect them, and in doing so, it generally incurs some cost of collection. The provision with which we are dealing here relates to the way in which that collection is to be done and how the cost is to be defrayed. In the case of certain small-sized dwelling-houses, where the rents are usually weekly and there is difficulty in collection, it was found more convenient to deal with the matter by means of what is known as the compounded rent, that is to say, the local authority employed each landlord to collect the rates with the rent, and for that purpose there is statutory provision in the Act of 1911. With regard to the amount of the commission that is to be paid, I submit that that is an essential part of local government in Glasgow and elsewhere in the country—because it does not apply only to Glasgow—and, clearly, it comes within the words of the Title of the Bill:
to amend the law relating to local government in Scotland.
Some suggestion was made that this was comparable in some way or other with the new Clause suggested yesterday relating to the Act of 1920, but the Act of 1920 is something totally different. The provision that it was sought to amend by means of that Clause related to rent, and not to rates—

Mr. STEPHEN: No.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The provision that it was sought to amend yesterday related to rent and not to rates. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1920 reads as follows:
The amount by which the increased rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rent shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be as follows, that is to say:
(b) An amount"—
that is to say, an amount of rent—
not exceeding any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of rates"—

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes; that is nothing more than specifying the amount by which the rent may be increased—

Mr. STEPHEN: No.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, clearly so; the Act deals with the power to increase standard rents. That is a matter which is not dealt with in any way by this Bill. It is a question between the landlord and the tenant, and not between local authorities and their ratepayers, which is the question here. Therefore, clearly, there is a distinction between the two, and I submit that this Clause is entirely in order.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Further on the point of Order. It seems to me that the Lord Advocate has not grasped the essential point. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), there is only one part of the Preamble to the Bill under which this Clause would come, that is to say, the part which says:
to amend the law relating to local government in Scotland.
What the Lord Advocate has to prove to your satisfaction is that an increase of 2½ per cent. in rates in Glasgow amends
the law relating to local government. I submit that he has not set out to prove that an increase of rates in Glasgow amends the law relating to local government. That is what he must prove, and he has not done it. He seeks to say that the Amendment which was ruled out of order yesterday was ruled out because it was a question of an increase of rent, but may I remind you, Sir, that that was not the ground on which Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled it out of order? What we are here discussing is not the Lord Advocate's ground for ruling it out of order, but what Mr. Deputy-Speaker took as his ground for ruling it out of order, namely, that it did not affect the law relating to local government in Scotland or grant relief from rates. The Lord Advocate says that it is out of order to deal with rent, but that increase of rent is an increase of rates, and, therefore, if it is out of order to deal with an increase of rates that is added to rent, surely it is out of order to argue about another increase of rates that is to be added to rent. I submit that the proposal which is now before us is the same as that which is ruled out of order. If this proposal be regarded as being in order, it immediately becomes an increase of rent, and, therefore, we say that by no strentch of imagination can this Clause, which provides for an increase of rates to house factors in Scotland, be termed an amendment of the law relating to local government. It does not make for wider boundaries, it does not make for efficient collection. Therefore, we ask you to rule it out of order.

Mr. MAXTON: Further on the point of Order. I wish to offer this further suggestion, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration before you give your Ruling. The essence of this Clause is not a proposal with reference to rates at all, but a proposal as to the way in which the collectors of rates shall be remunerated, and I suggest to you, Sir, that it is as much out of order as if I attempted to come in here and move a Clause fixing the rates of scavengers in the City of Glasgow.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) for having given me notice that he was going to raise this point. It certainly seems to be one of some difficulty. Strictly speaking, I should be entitled not
to deal with this as a question of Order at all at this stage, because this is the Report stage of the Bill, and presumably, these questions would have been gone into during the Committee stage, and no Clause would be allowed to be in the Bill now if it were not strictly in order. The fact of the Guillotine being in operation might prevent hon. Members from raising the matter with the Chairman of the Committee as a definite point of Order if the Clause in question were not reached, but, at the same time, it would be understood that the Chairman would not have allowed the Clause to be put into the Bill if he had decided in his own mind that it was out of order and should be removed from the Bill. The circumstances being as they are, however, I am quite prepared now to give a Ruling on the question.
I understand that the point raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie is whether a Ruling which was given with regard to a new Clause proposed yesterday ought not to apply to this Clause in the same way. I consider definitely that it ought not. The new Clause proposed yesterday, in my judgment—and I think that that will also be the judgment of the hon. Member if he considers it—was outside the scope of this Bill, in that the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act deals entirely with the fixing of rents. This particular Clause, in my judgment, is a matter of administration of local government, and, being purely a local government matter, is within the scope of this Bill, as opposed to the new Clause proposed yesterday. As I understand it, without going in any way into the merits of the Clause, which it is not my business to do, this Clause allows the landlord something extra because he compounds to pay the rates, and it does so by allowing a deduction from the assessment to cover the cost of collection. That, as I read it, would be purely a matter of local government, as the rates would have to be collected in any case, and, therefore, it is entirely within the scope of this Bill.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I desire to thank you, Sir, for your Ruling on this matter, which, of course, I accept. The circumstances in which the
factors in Scotland, and more, especially in Glasgow, have sought to persuade the Government from time to time to accept this increase in their percentage for collecting rates, is possibly very praiseworthy so far as they themselves are concerned, but at the same time, of all the attempts that they have made, I think the present attempt is the one which should meet with the greatest amount of reprobation from Members of this House. The local authorities concerned were given no opportunity of knowing that the Government were going to deal with this matter, and, if the factors had to depend upon the support that they could get in this House from Members of either party, apart from the Government, I do not think they would have very much chance of getting this alteration made in the law. But the Government at the eleventh hour agreed to the representations that had been made to them by those people, and the convenience of the local authorities from one end of Scotland to the other has been entirely lost sight of.
It may be that the Government, having put this Clause on the Order Paper during the Committee stage, may hold that the local authorities then had an opportunity of making their representations between the Committee stage and the Report stage; but we all know that it is a very difficult matter for a Government to take a decision and then to alter that decision. Such a case did occur the other day, but it was only after a tremendous rebellion on the back benches of the Conservative party which threatened the very existence of the Government, and it was only the widespread character of the revolt which made the Government on that occasion give way and alter their decision. The Government had no right to come to this decision without giving the local authorities an opportunity of expressing their mind. This is for the local authorities a very important question. It does not apply only to Glasgow, as might be thought from the appearance of the Clause with its reference to Glasgow. It applies to every part of Scotland where the 1911 Act is in operation. Consequently, it is a matter of importance not only to Glasgow but to all the other big cities and towns. The number of factors concerned in Glasgow is 230, according to
an answer which was given by the Secretary of State. I propose to deal directly with the Glasgow case, and I have no doubt some of my colleagues from other parts of the country will be anxious to state how it is going to affect their districts.
The 230 factors in Glasgow are responsible for the collection of rates amounting to £1,062,582. You may say that is a lot of money. How much do they get for collecting it? At present they get a fixed percentage of 2½ per cent., which allows them to draw £26,499. Look at the collection of rates by the City collector. He is responsible for collecting practically £7,500,000. In addition, he is responsible for the collection of other accounts, such as gas and electricity. He is responsible for a total collection of £11,474,683. So that, on the one hand, you have the collection of money amounting to practically £11,500,000 as against £1,000,000, and the whole cost of the city collector's office for collecting this £11,500,000 is £53,861, which is practically twice the amount that is taken by the house factors for the collection of one-eleventh of the amount. So that these people are getting five times as much for their work as is paid in connection with the other accounts of the various municipal departments, and the proposal of the Government is that they can go to the sheriff and, if he agrees, they can get the amount doubled. That is to say, instead of getting five times as much as the City collector requires, they are going to get 11 times as much, if you measure it by the amount of money collected. For the rest of the country the figure is fixed at a maximum of 2½ per cent. With regard to the other districts, the parties concerned had a right to appeal to the sheriff, and if they could persuade him they might get up to 2½ per cent. but not more. In Glasgow the 2½ per cent. is to be changed to a maximum of 5 per cent. at the discretion of the sheriff, and the whole of Scotland is going to be put into the same position. I think I have correctly stated the facts in connection with the alteration that is involved in the Clause.
To come back to Glasgow again, a penny rate raises before the Bill passes into law, £45,800. It is estimated that when the Government's de-rating proposals are passed, a penny rate will produce
£41,400, so that we are going to have an additional rate levied upon all the people in Glasgow amounting to 64d. in the £ if this proposal is carried.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: And if the Sheriff allows.

Mr. STEPHEN: I accept the correction. I will come back to that later. That is a very serious position. Take the work that house factors do in the matter of rates. You may say it is difficult work and it costs so much to do. Apart from some little book-keeping operations, there is no additional work necessary at all. The rates are collected along with the rent. The rent collector goes in monthly and gets a definite amount month by month. There is no additional charge. He has to be there for the rent anyhow. He has not to explain anything to the people in connection with their rents. They know what they have to pay. There is no additional work involved in the collection of the rates as far as visiting the people is concerned, so that any difference in this matter arises from the fact that in making up his accounts he has to make the difference in his accounts, but that is all the work that is involved, and for this he is paid to the extent of £26,499.
Then, again, I want to make it clear that if this is granted, and if the Sheriff allows the increase to take place, every ratepayer in Glasgow is going to be put in the position of having to pay a contribution in connection with it. I think of my own division. The house factors go to the tenants and collect the rents. In the future I see in my mind's eye a long street, Duke Street, in which there are so many shopkeepers who are passing through a difficult period. They are getting no relief whatever in connection with this Measure. There is the other main thoroughfare in my division, and every shopkeeper in it has to pay a certain increase in rates to pay the house factors for going round collecting the rates in those small dwellings that are affected by the 1911 Act. Every other citizen in Glasgow has to pay a contribution towards this expensive method of collecting rates, because it is much more expensive than the other method that is in operation. I do not want to be unfair in presenting my reasons for suggesting that the Government should
accept the Amendment, and should put the matter back for further consultation. It may be said that it would be a very difficult and expensive matter to collect the rates from those small houses in any other way than along with the rents; at the same time, the great majority of these small dwellings that come under the 1911 Act at this time of day have gas, and the authorities are able to collect their gas account, and it all comes into this £11,500,000. So that practically every one of these houses to which the house factor goes is also visited by the gas collector, and the expenses in that connection are met by expenditure of £53,861. There is no case at all for the Government giving this increase to these 230 men in Glasgow. In the past they got £115, but if the Sheriff agrees, in the future they will get £230 a year. It would pay the City far better to take over this business for themselves. There is no suggestion on the part of the Government to allow the local authority the option of taking this matter over.
I should like now to deal with the other point, that it is only going to happen if the Sheriff allows it. The house factors have to make out their case before the Sheriff, and there is an arrangement for revision at various periods under the 1911 Act. That, in itself, is going to involve the corporation in so much more expense. I cannot see how the Sheriff is a person who is likely to be able to give a satisfactory decision. He may be learned in the law, but he may be a very poor accountant. If you are going to have an authority, that authority should be a person who is accustomed to dealing with accountancy and used to collecting accounts. This matter is being handed over to the Sheriff, who will decide, whereas it is something which requires decision by people who are skilled in accountancy. It is not a question of law, but a question of accountancy, and consequently the wrong person is to be the arbiter in a dispute between the factors. I do not believe that the Government could get a thousand people in the City of Glasgow who would be likely to agree with the justice of this proposal. I do not believe that they could get a thousand people in the City of Glasgow who do not believe that the factors are very well off at the present time. It
may be said that it is not, the factors who are going to get this money, but the owners of property. In a discussion with one of the Glasgow Corporation people, it was said that this is going to mean an additional charge on the owners as well.
I submit that, if the Government want to deal with this question, they should deal with it in a straightforward manner. They ought to have put this proposal into their Bill at the beginning, or they should have put it down on the Paper early in the Committee stage. If the Government's intentions in regard to this matter had been made known, it would have allowed, not only Glasgow, but Dundee, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Motherwell, and the other towns in the country an opportunity of putting their views before the Government. I have not the figures as to how the local authorities in other parts of the country will be affected, but I would like the Lord Advocate, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, or whoever is to reply, to tell us the position with regard to the other local authorities. How many of them are paying on the maximum rate of 2½ per cent.? How many cases were taken to the Sheriff by other authorities for decision? In the case of Glasgow, there was no option. The 2½ per cent. was fixed. I would like to know how many authorities went to the Sheriff, or how many of the property owners had to go to the Sheriff in connection with the rate that was being allowed? What is the total amount of rates collected by these people in Scotland and what is their total charge for collection?
I am quite sure that, of the many unpopular things in this Bill, this will be the most unpopular. People in the poorer districts such as represent are at their wits' end to find the rent for the factors. If the Lord Advocate would pay a visit to the rent Court in Glasgow, he would see the tragedies that are being enacted there. He would see poor people in the most miserable circumstances making the most desperate efforts to find the money with which to pay their present rent. There is to be no relief for them, but relief for the people who collect the rents—a present to them of £26,000 if they can get the Sheriff to agree to the proposal. Local authorities throughout Scotland are going to have
to face not only all the difficulties connected with these readjustments but all the trouble of having to go to the Sheriff and of having an inquiry in order to bring out this figure and that figure. This is an intolerable action on the part of the Government, and I hope that, if the proposal is embodied in this Measure, the new Government which will come in in June will take speedy measures to prevent these people from sucking the blood of the people in the way they are doing at the present time owing to the amount of money they receive for collecting rates.

Mr. J. STEWART: I beg to second the Amendment. I hope I shall be in order in calling attention to the fact that this is an example of legislation supposed to be for the benefit of the people. A Bill in connection with this matter was before this House for a number of years before it became law in 1911. It was known in Glasgow as Mr. Cross's Bill, Mr. Cross being then the Member for Camlachie. The idea of the Measure was that its provisions should be beneficial to the people who lived in houses at small rents and had short lets, that is to say, weekly or monthly lets. It was provided that the landlords should be responsible for the collection of the rents of these houses. Subsequently we had a rent Act which altered the situation, while later on we had an Amendment of the Rent Act which again altered the situation. As has been mentioned to-night, additions were made to rent by reason of the Act of 1920 which transferred the burden, as it was called, that had been put on the landlord in 1915. In the amending Act rates became part of the rent. Part of the increase of 47½ per cent. in rents was in respect of rates. Later on, we had another Amendment decontrolling houses, and under that we had an addition made to the landlord's income.
Since 1914, the rates of Glasgow have more than doubled, and, although the rate of commission has remained the same, the amount received for collection has more than doubled, first, because of the increase of rent, and then because of the increase of the rates per pound. In 1914, the rates for the City of Glasgow were 2s. in the £, and to-day the corporation rate, apart altogether from the parish council and education rate, is 4s. in the pound. In 1912, they collected £54,080 of
rates and the commission received in connection with the same was £13,520. To-day, they are collecting £1,062,000, for which they will receive £52,900 if the sheriff permits the percentage to be doubled. [Interruption.] I have said: "If the sheriff permits it." The percentage may be increased from 2½ per cent. to 5 per cent. The factors of Glasgow, whom I know, and some of them, like the rest of us, are quite decent fellows, are alive to their own interests; much more so than are some other people. If the tenants were as much alive as they are, the Government would not be doing what they are doing to-night.

Sir R. HORNE: It is not the tenant who is making a protest. It is the corporation, with all the power behind it which enables it to employ the best advocates before the sheriff.

Mr. STEWART: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his interruption. That is just what the Corporation of Glasgow have not had an opportunity of doing.

Sir R. HORNE: That is what they will be able to do under the Bill.

Mr. STEWART: Yes, they will, perhaps, be able to make an appeal against a decision.

Sir R. HORNE: Oh, no. The hon. Gentleman is mistaking the purport of this legislation. This Bill enables the corporation to appear before the sheriff in order to prove that it does not cost the householder as much as he is claiming to collect his rates, and to have it reduced to the minimum. The corporation will be in a position to employ counsel, as it has frequently done in the past, for its own benefit.

Mr. STEWART: Yes, I will concede that point at once. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman has received the same communication from the Glasgow Corporation as have all Glasgow Members.

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, I have, and I will deal with it later.

Mr. STEWART: It is quite apparent that that expresses the opinion of the 113 members of the Glasgow Corporation as far as we know—there has been no information to the contrary—and shows what they feel in regard to the Government
not giving the Corporation of Glasgow any opportunity of making representations before the Bill is passed through this House.

Sir R. HORNE: I have got the representation.

Mr. STEWART: I think it would be proper to allow them the opportunity of making their representation before this Bill becomes law.

Sir R. HORNE: They have done so.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. STEWART: I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will be perfectly well able to deal with that when he replies. I was speaking about the question of this increase. The rates of Glasgow have doubled and, instead of getting £13,000 now, the factors are getting £26,000 or slightly more than double what they got when it originally commenced. They are getting more than that, because in 1912 there were over 18,000 empty houses in Glasgow, and to-day one can say with absolute accuracy that there is not an empty house of that kind within the confines of the city. That means that they are now getting commission for collecting rates on about three-fourths of that number of houses. They are now getting commission for collecting rates on those houses which were formerly empty. Altogether the landlords of Glasgow have not done so badly. Under de-control the landlords have been able to increase rents very considerably and their account is very well on the credit side. The only people who are going to lose are the tenants and the Corporation of Glasgow. A penny rate yields £45,000 in Glasgow at the present moment, but when de-rating is in force it will yield only £41,000. That means that when de-rating is accomplished the tenants and landlords of Glasgow—for the landlords will have to pay their proportion—will have to bear their share of the burden caused by this decrease in the yield of a penny rate.
Can anyone show us a reasonable justification for this action at the present time? We are being assured that the Sheriff will have to give permission, and it is suggested that, when the Corporation of Glasgow presents its case, the Sheriff will not give the increase. I have no confidence in any such assurance. I am
convinced that the people of Glasgow will resent what is being done by the Government. I would remind the House of what happened in 1922. Members sitting on the Government Benches have at various times castigated the Members on this side on that account, saying that we represented in 1922 that the rents would be increased under the Rent Act, and that by not playing the game we won our 10 seats in Glasgow through those representations. I assure the Government that, just as in 1922 the fact that there was a probability of the landlords getting the opportunity to increase their rents by 47½ per cent. had that effect on the representation of Glasgow, so when the people of Glasgow learn that, besides the burden which de-rating is going to throw on the mass of the tenants of Glasgow, at this moment, when trade is bad, wages are low, rents are high and houses throughout the country are fully let, the Government have thought it opportune to add this burden, they will then know that once again they have been tricked by those who claim to be the friends of the working class-. This burden must come back to the tenants, and I would point out that over 82 per cent. of the rates are paid by householders and shopkeepers, and only 18 per cent. by those who are getting the benefit of de-rating.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I confess frankly that I amazed at the justification of the Amendment, and I am surprised at the attitude which the Glasgow Corporation have taken up in this matter. I would remind the House that the view of the Government was made clear in the Amendment which was tabled to the Bating Bill of 1926, and the intention of the Government has never altered since that date. The Corporation of Glasgow have been fully aware of the attitude of the Government, and I received a deputation from them at the end of last week on this matter among other matters. Whether that is so or not, I am perfectly prepared to defend the Clause. In 1911, before the War, it was found convenient, mainly in the interests of the local authorities and particularly of the Glasgow Corporation itself, to have a particular class of the rates collected for them by means of the compounded rate and it was necessary, in order to adopt the compounded rate method which had been
optional in burghs up to that date, to put the burden compulsorily upon the landlords not only to pay their own rates, but to recover the tenants' rates and account to the Corporation for the rates so collected. It was obviously right that the landlords, having that compulsorily put upon them, should be paid for the cost of collection.
That was the provision in the Act of 1911 with regard to all the country except Glasgow. With regard to Glasgow, a flat rate of 2½ per cent. was paid at that time before the War. In the rest of the country it was a maximum of 2½ per cent., but such amount under 2½ per cent. as could be proved before the Sheriff to be the actual cost of rate collecting. I have not been able to get much information on that point about the rest of the country. I know that in one case, in Dunfermline, in 1916, the actual percentage? allowed was 1¼ per cent., and in another case it was an identical figure, about half the maximum allowance. The value of money has changed since then and many factors have changed. I concede entirely what the hon. Member has said about getting a larger sum for collecting one person's rate. That is exactly the factor that the Sheriff should consider. Are the corporation of Glasgow unwilling to pay the actual cost of collecting to the landlord on whom by this House has been placed the duty of collecting these rates for the corporation? It can only be because they think a just payment for this collection is more than 2½ per cent., and they do not want to pay it. Certain figures have been given by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), who said that Glasgow could do its own rate collecting much cheaper. He admitted very fairly that the class of rate collecting with which we are here concerned was probably more difficult. But, if the corporation thinks that its proof before the Sheriff of what it costs a landlord is going to produce a heavier figure for commission than it would cost the corporation to do the work, then the corporation should be freed to collect its own rates. On the other hand, some of the other arguments which were put forward by hon. Members who have spoken were excellent arguments to put before the Sheriff for a reduction to less than 2½ per cent., and it is perfectly open to the corporation to do this. If the hon.
Member for Camlachie were qualified in Scotland as he is in England, he might be employed by the corporation to apply before the Sheriff for a reduction.
I take my stand on this even at the risk of repetition. This duty of collecting is forced on the landlord by Parliament for the benefit of the corporation, and I cannot see why they should not pay the actual cost of collection to those on whom that duty is forced. We provide in this Clause that the actual cost of collection, as proved before a Judge, shall be repaid, or rather allowed to be taken out of the money collected. What is the other proposal To stick to a flat-rate of 2½ per cent., the old flat rate. I repeat that, if that 2½ per cent. is too much, they should not be paying it, and should be saving the ratepayers of Glasgow the extra cost. If it is too little, then it is not fair or just to say that the Glasgow Corporation should pay less than the actual cost of what the landlord is bound to do for the benefit of the corporation of Glasgow. I would add that, as far as I know, we have received no representation against this Clause from anybody except the corporation of Glasgow.

Mr. HARDIE: The last words of the Lord Advocate explained a great deal to me. He says that no representations have been made. What time has anybody had to protest against this, owing to the way it has been done? The Government should not do a thing like this to the corporation. A local authority has the power to levy rates. Why should the Government compel the local authority to increase the rates, as is being done in this case The Government are compelling the Glasgow Corporation to increase their rates in order to pay for the collection of rates.

Sir R. HORNE: Only if the Sheriff allows it.

Mr. HARDIE: I understand all that parrot cry. This Clause is infringing upon the right of the local authority, and it is a very serious matter. Even to give the power as it stood was something of an innovation. When the Lord Advocate spoke about the corporation of Glasgow collecting the rates, he ought to have known that certain classes of rates must be compounded. Therefore, the corporation
were not allowed to collect these rates. This proposal will not only impose a new rate upon the local authority, but it means imposing that new rate upon a depleted area so far as rates are concerned. Practically the whole of this rate will have to be put upon the house occupier and the shopkeeper. I want to deal with the position which arose in 1926 when we were dealing with the Rating (Scotland) Bill in Committee. On that occasion, the Lord Advocate said that a very leading association of property owners only requested an increase in the commission if the £4 house was left in. He tells us that this question has been before us ever since we discussed the Rating Act in 1928. He said in Committee that those Members of the Committee who were not asking for the increase would agree that the fair attitude was that those who asked it must satisfy the Committee on the point. Will the Lord Advocate tell us whether, since we finished that Bill in Committee, any bodies have been consulted, and, if so, will he tell us the names of those bodies? He has not informed the House what steps have been taken in the meantime. In Committee on the Rating Bill he said that those who desired an increase must prove their case, and he went on to say:
I am not expressing any view on this. The Committee are entitled to say that if more is asked it is for those who ask it to prove the necessity for the advance. That is the position of the Government, and I think it is the position which the Committee ought to take up.
We have not had a single word in this House to throw any light upon that particular sentence from the statement of the Lord Advocate. There has been so evidence of any kind since the Scottish Committee discussed that Bill that the Government have had meetings with anyone on the subject, that they have had conversations with property owners or with anyone representing the house factors. We have never been informed of any investigations that have been made by the Lord Advocate or any of the representatives of the Scottish Office in regard to what the Lord Advocate said was essential before the Government would move, namely, that the necessity for any advance must be proved. The Lord Advocate said to the Committee: "That is the position of the Government."
If he still says that that is the position of the Government, why has the House been left without a single word on this particular point? The Lord Advocate also said:
I do not propose to say anything more except to point out what is the view of the Government. If the Committee are satisfied that an increase is necessary, then it would almost necessarily follow that we must amend the amount in the House Letting Act as well. One knows that in Glasgow the payment of this commission means a very substantial sum and an advance of one per cent. on it would be a substantial sum. Those Members of the Committee who are not asking for the increase will agree that the fair attitude is that those who ask it must satisfy the Committee on the point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 8th July, 1926; col. 2897.]
Here we find the Lord Advocate emphasising the point that there was no need for legislation until, first, a case had been made out as the basis for that legislation. We have not been given any information during the Second Reading, the Committee stage, or the Report stage of this Bill on this most definite statement which was made by the Lord Advocate in 1926, when the Bating Bill was before the Scottish Grand Committee. The inclusion of this proposal in the Clause can only be likened to the last cart leaving the last town to be evacuated. The Government are throwing everything into the cart that they possibly can, because they realise that they are not likely to be coming this way again. This proposal has no relation to de-rating. Reference has been made to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and to his various abilities. To-day the hon. Member has, once more, shown his legal mind. It does not matter whether a man is qualified in English law or Scottish law so long as he has logic and he can deal with things in an intelligent way. Common sense is common sense the world over.
When the Lord Advocate made reference to the Glasgow Corporation he was forgetting that under compulsion these rates were compounded with the rent. I would like to emphasise the statement which was made by the Lord Advocate that a very leading association of property owners only requested an increase in commission if the £4 house was left in. If we had been dealing to-day with the question of rent or rates it
might have been possible for the legal luminaries to have explained matters better, but what we are dealing with is neither rent nor rates; it is simply a question of a sum of money called commission for collection of the rent which is compounded with the rates. I am no lawyer, but I know that when one deals with a question which is complicated, the first thing that a reasonable man seeks to do is to try to put the different things into the different compartments to which they belong. We cannot separate the rates from the rent when by law they are compounded, but we can definitely separate commission for the collection of the compounded rents and rates. It does not matter how much the rates are or how much the rent is, the question involved is the amount to be paid for the collection of rents and rates by the factor of the property. In Scotland the owner is seldom the factor of his property. He generally employs a factor. That is where the commission basis begins. In the old days, before compounding, the factor was simply paid a varying commission according to the conditions and a sum per pound for the collection of rents. When there came the compounding of rates following upon that, it was agreed that that collection had to be paid for. No one wants to quarrel about the payment, but no one wants power from Parliament to compel a community to do something that it does not want to do. You are not compelling the house-owner under this Clause to pay; what you are doing is to say that a commission of 5 per cent. is to be paid to the factor, if the sheriff admits it. We know what that means. A visit to some of the courts of Glasgow and other cities in the early mornings would reveal what is meant when rates are compounded with rent.
The full meaning of this Clause is that property is having another security, small as it may seem, placed upon it. It is not content to have the law as it stands on its side. It is not content with all the rights which the law has given it in relation to rents, most of which is robbery, but it comes along with the idea that even in regard to money that is to be spent upon public improvements, money which the citizens through their town councills collect in order to apply it for social advancement, has to be subject to a Clause in an Act which has no
relation to the subject of commission. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will see their folly in proposing such a Clause.

Sir R. HORNE: This subject is one which we can and which we ought to discuss without heat, animosity, prejudice or bias of any kind, and I hope that it will be possible for us, on both sides, to regard this problem entirely apart from the question of the particular individuals involved. It may be that the renting system is all wrong and that at some time we shall get rid of it, but up to now we have allowed private individuals to provide the houses for people to live in, and we cannot expect that that provision should be made without any return. Therefore, do not let us think whether the person who is involved is a house-owner or not. Let us look upon him as a person who has done something to serve the community. Without the provision that he has made, how would the community have had their heads covered?
Let us look at the origin of thus question. It has all arisen out of the change which was made in the year 1911. Up to then much as we in Scotland may dislike it, we had fallen behind England in the matter of providing short-term lets for people who required them. Undoubtedly, the people in Scotland suffered from severe and great embarrassment as a result of that state of things. Hon. Members opposite will remember, as I do, the missive system which compelled the workman, long before he knew where he was going to work, to sign for a rent or for a lease months ahead of the time when he could say where he would be employed. He was placed in this further awkward position that, being in a house with a long-term let, he was in difficulty in regard to taking employment elsewhere which might have suited him very much better. England was ahead of us in these matters, and in 1911 the House Letting Act for Scotland was brought in, to establish the system of short-term lets. Immediately you had short-term lets the question arose as to how you were going to collect your rates. Rates in Scotland were collected at one period of time in the year, and if you had people in tenancy for only a month, or two months or three months, the question was how the local authorities were going to collect
the rates from these particular tenants unless they had an enormous army of collectors constantly going about to discover how long a particular tenant was going to stay. That is the reason why we are in this particular difficulty.
In that crisis the Government decided that the only practicable way wag to put upon the landlord the duty of collecting the rates, because he alone knew how long the tenant was going to stay. The landlords, and especially the Glasgow landlords, fought most determinedly against this proposal, but Parliament, in spite of their opposition, determined to impose this duty of collecting the rates upon them. In order to reinforce my point, I have taken the trouble to look up the Debates on the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill of 1911. The Lord Advocate then was Mr. Ure, who afterwards became Lord Strathclyde, and on the Second Reading of that Bill he said this:
The result will be that there will be a system of short lets in Scotland as in England. If that be so it is obvious that some readjustment of the present system of collecting rates is necessary. Rates in Scotland are collected at one time, and that the most inconvenient time for the tenant.
There are two ways in which a readjustment may be made; the owner may be asked to collect the occupiers' rates, or the local authority may be asked to make more frequent collections. The Government prefer the former method because it is the simpler and more convenient."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1911; col. 393, Vol. 27.]
In one portion of his speech he indicated that there might be an option to the local authority to determine whether they would collect the rates or impose the duty on the landlord. In the Debate which followed Mr. Scott Dickson, the then Member for Central Glasgow, whom many hon. Members will remember, strongly protested on behalf of house owners against the duty being imposed on the landlords, and the question was really determined by the speech of the then Liberal Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) who said this
I am not at one with the right hon. Gentleman as to what he says with regard to allowing the local authorities the option to collect the rates. I am quite sure if that is adopted that it will affect very materially the value of this Bill, and that if he will consult the working classes of Edinburgh and Glasgow that that option will not be given because it will be simply impossible.
Then he revealed a particular political object. He went on
Take, for instance, the Poor Rate on which the qualification for the Vote is based. If that small rate can be collected at frequent intervals then practically speaking the local authorities will strike out the names."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1911; col. 394, Vol. 27.]
In the interests of keeping people who would not be able to pay their rates from being disfranchised Parliament, at that time a Liberal Parliament, came down in favour, apart from all other considerations, of imposing this duty against their will on the householders of the country because of this particular political object. If we regard this as a matter of justice every hon. Member will agree that to impose this duty against their will on people who are not responsible for the collection of rates—that is the duty of the municipal authorities—then obviously you must pay them what it costs for the collection. Surely that is fair and just. What are we doing by this Bill? The Lord Advocate in this proposal is getting much nearer to justice in this matter than the old Act did, because the old Act provided a stereotyped rate of 2½ per cent. It is quite possible that it does not cost the householders 2½ per cent. to collect these rates, and if the view of hon. Members opposite is correct, it may be that they are getting far more out of the municipality than they are entitled to. The rate originally fixed may be too high to-day, and if it is too high, the Bill gives the Corporation of Glasgow the opportunity of appearing before the Sheriff and saying that it is too high, and proving what it costs to collect as against what the householder is charging the corporation.
As far as I know the corporation of Glasgow have always been able to employ the most expensive counsel in matters concerning the corporation, whether the case is heard in Edinburgh or in the Courts in Glasgow. At any rate it is quite certain that the corporation of Glasgow will not be inadequately represented when this argument takes place. It has been said, "What do the Sheriffs know about these accounts? "It will be made very plain to the Sheriff by the advocates who appear before him what is the nature of the issues upon which his judgment depends, and I cannot imagine
that the Sheriffs, who are entrusted with the decision of grave questions involving large sums, will, under these circumstances, be moved by any extraneous considerations on this matter and will not judge as they find the facts to be and give an absolutely just decision on the points put before them. It has been said that the householders may take a considerable risk in this matter; but they are taking this risk and it is now for the corporations in Scotland to put before the Sheriffs adequate reasons why the amount should be less than 2½ per cent. or such amount as the houseowners claim. Questions of prejudice should really fall outside this discussion. We should see that justice is done. When the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was speaking he seemed to me to roll the word "factor" round his tongue. He reminded me of a school in the Highlands where factors are not popular. A pupil was reading an examination passage from the Bible, and the passage happened to be concerned with the crucifixion of our Lord—
There they crucified Him, and the 'male factors,' one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
Upon the present occasion, we should get rid of prejudices of that kind, and determine the matter on the pure justice of the case. I cannot imagine that justice can be better served than by the proposal of the Lord Advocate.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Gentleman for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has appealed to us to approach this matter without prejudice and without bias, but it is a remarkable thing that the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure always speaks without prejudice and without bias, has never once delivered a speech in this House in favour of a claim by the tenants or the workers. It must be that with our prejudiced minds we think the tenants are always wrong.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member must remember that I have not had an opportunity of speaking upon any question affecting tenants up to now.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has had more experience of legislation in this House than I have, but during my comparatively brief period many questions affecting landlords and tenants have been discussed, and I am
sure that I could search the official records of this House in vain for a speech by the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the interests of the tenants. To-day we have had a characteristic speech from him. He has once more appealed to us, not on behalf of the people of Hillhead, not on behalf of the people of Glasgow, but on behalf of a handful of people who, according to him, have the most unmentionable names. The only argument he used was that the Government, having imposed the duty on house factors, or house-owners, of collecting these rates, these men have a moral right to go to a Judge and get a judgment on what would be equitable remuneration. The right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor of the Exchequer and he has imposed on certain people the duty of collecting Income Tax and insurance contributions, but I have never heard of him pleading that the employers of this country, or the secretaries of limited companies, should have the power and right to appeal to a Judge for a reasonable commission on the collection of Income Tax.
The right hon. Gentleman followed the example of the Lord Advocate in one respect. Neither of them attempted to prove even a prima facie case in support of this amendment of the law which we are discussing this afternoon. One would have thought that they would have submitted some figures to show that there was a case for inquiry, but not a single scrap of evidence has been submitted to the House at all. The only point put forward by the Lord Advocate was that the value of money has changed since 1911 when this maximum contribution was fixed. But the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) pointed out that the amount received by the house factors for the collection of rates is exactly double what it was in 1911. The rates have doubled. Therefore the 2½ per cent. to-day represents 5 per cent. on the sum that was collected in 1911. There can be no claim that there is an additional amount of work there. If you give them this additional 2½ per cent. and make the amount £53,000 instead of £26,000, it does not follow that an extra clerk will be required, that an extra sheet of paper will be used, or an extra drop of ink consumed. It is the same amount of labour calculating commission at 5 per cent. on a given sum as it is in calculating
a commission of 2½ per cent. on the same sum. I submit that there has not been the slightest word put forward as evidence in support of this very drastic proposal. But there is here evidence of something else. How easy it is for a certain section of the community to move the Government! The right hon. Member for Hillhead threw out sneers and jeers at the Corporation of Glasgow.

Sir R. HORNE: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman must justify that statement. I made no jeers. There is not a corporation in the country for which I have more respect, and language of that kind must not be used by the right hon. Gentleman without justification.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Gentleman told us that this matter had been before the Corporation of Glasgow and the public since it was mentioned—

Sir R. HORNE: I said nothing whatsoever about that in my speech. I do not know to what the right hon. Gentleman is referring. There is not a word that he is uttering now that represents what I said. I certainly said the corporation would protect themselves. They have always been able to do so.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sorry if I misquoted the right hon. Gentleman, but he said that in 1926 this matter was mentioned in the House.

Sir R. HORNE: I never said anything of the kind; I never mentioned such a fact.

Mr. WHEATLEY: It may have been the Lord Advocate who made the point.

Sir R. HORNE: What I take exception to is the right hon. Gentleman's statement that I jeered at the Corporation of Glasgow. I did nothing of the kind.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Other people may put a different interpretation on it, but the right hon. Gentleman certainly told the House that the Glasgow Corporation needed no sympathy, because they could employ the best and most expensive counsel to put their case.

Sir R. HORNE: That is not jeering at them.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Surely it is jeering at people to impose an injustice on them and to justify it by the argument that they can protect themselves by employing the most expensive counsel in a court of law? My point is that it is quite easy for some people to move the Government, however difficult it may be for the masses of the people to do so. As far as this Bill is concerned, the secret history of this particular Clause it will be most interesting to hear if we could have it. All that we know is that two or three Conservative Members put it on the Paper. It is a remarkable fact that not one of those who put it on the Paper has risen in the House to-day to support the proposal, and I am not sure that one of them is present in the House.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: Oh, yes, I am here.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am glad that one of them is in the House, and I hope he will rise to justify the Clause. I hope that when the hon. Member for the Cathcart Division of Glasgow (Mr. R. MacDonald) goes down to his constituents he will be ready to justify to them the proposal that he is advocating here. The Corporation of Glasgow represents over 1,000,000 people. The corporation has unanimously opposed this proposal, and the political friends of the right hon. Member for Hillhead, who are the majority in the Glasgow Corporation, have unanimously condemned the proposal. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to ask me to believe that the house-owners and factors of Glasgow cannot hope for justice from the Conservative members of Glasgow Corporation? These members are coming to us—

Sir R. HORNE: We are not delegates here. We have a right to our own, opinions.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not want to deny that the right hon. Gentleman is expressing his own opinion, but I am sure that if it were possible to take a plebiscite in Hillhead I should find that he was not expressing the opinion of the majority of people in Hillhead, which is a Conservative constituency. I even go to the length of saying that if there were not one or two influential house factors in his Division he might not be so prominent in these discussions. At any rate, I do not think that the right hon.
Gentleman is justified in talking about this as a concession to the house-owners. I have very grave doubts as to the £26,000 ever reaching the house-owners. It will go to the house factors, and the factors are not always the owners; the right hon. Gentleman knows that they are very seldom the house-owners. In actual practice, things are being arranged in order that the incomes of the house factors may be increased.

Sir R. HORNE: My information is exactly the contrary.

Mr. WHEATLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman has the information, he has carefully concealed it from the House.

Sir R. HORNE: I will make another speech if the right hon. Gentleman likes. In any case, I will interrupt to say that all my information is to the effect that factors get more from the collection at the present time than the house-owners get from the Corporation.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit that the evidence that has been produced here is just as weak as the evidence that has been submitted by the Lord Advocate and the right hon. Gentleman to support their action in raising this question at all. Really I hope that the best and most expensive council who represent house factors before the sheriff, if ever a case under this Bill gets there, will be more successful in their pleading than the right hon. Member for Hillhead has been this afternoon. It is a remarkable fact that some Members representing Glasgow have so little consideration for the opinion of Glasgow. This question affects vitally the corporation and the business with which it has to deal.

Sir R. HORNE: So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly prepared to appear before any audience in Glasgow to defend the action which I am taking now.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think that is a challenge. Will the right hon. Gentleman come out to my Division and support his action there?

Sir R. HORNE: I shall be delighted to speak in your Division.

Mr. WHEATLEY: With myself on the same platform?

Sir R. HORNE: Certainly.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Then I shall arrange the meeting. It is very difficult to sustain a connected argument with all these interruptions, but, now that pistols for two and coffee for one have been arranged, perhaps I may proceed in a more orderly way with the discussion. My point was that it was not entirely fair to say that this is a concession to house-owners. In the district that I represent, the house factors own very little if any of the property from which they collect rates. I think that that applies to nearly every working-class district in Glasgow. It would be interesting to know how much property is owned by the 230 gentlemen who are to benefit by this gift from the Government. The house factors are simply agents employed in the collection of rents. As agents they got added this side-line of collecting rates. The amount that they are getting from rate collecting is £26,000, but if this proposal is carried—as no doubt it will be, with the present majority in the House—however unjust the proposal may be, they will get in future a sum approximating to £53,000, and if they have any feeling of generosity left there will be at any rate one section of the community on which Conservative candidates in Glasgow can rely absolutely at the forthcoming General Election. I submit that there was never a proposal put before this House with less justification and support behind it. There is a very old and hackneyed saying, that "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad." There never has been stronger evidence of the wisdom of the author of that statement than we have in the action of the Government to-day.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: It is not often that I trouble the House even with a few words, but as I put my name to this now celebrated Amendment, and as the right hon. Gentleman said that none of those who sponsored the Amendment were in the House, I immediately stepped to the front to show him that there was at any rate one individual who was prepared to stand up and defend his action. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that if the Amendment became law the factors would in future get a certain amount. That is an entire misrepresentation of the Amendment. They will not
in future get anything unless the Sheriff judicially decides that they are entitled to get it. Why misrepresent a very simple Amendment by exaggerating it in such a way as the right hon. Gentleman has done? I do not know the rights or wrongs of this particular claim on behalf of the factors, but I have been told that they are losing money. Some hon. Gentlemen think that they are not losing money. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) evidently thinks so. He has been in many parts of the world, and he knows a great many curious people. I daresay his opinion may be accurate, but, at any rate, I know my hon. Friend sufficiently well to know that he is a man who loves justice, a word which we often hear from those benches.
8.0 p.m.
If that is so, let the owners go to the Sheriff and state in truth that they are not getting sufficient remuneration. The labourer is worthy of his hire. If the Sheriff says, "I think you are doing very well, I will turn you down," there is an end to it. When the corporation of the City of Glasgow collected these rates themselves, they did not collect them very well; they did not know how to do it. Perhaps one reason why hon. Members on those benches object to the system is that they think the rates are being collected too well. I am going to tell them what the corporation of the City of Glasgow lost. The evidence was given before Lord Guthrie's Commission that they lost £25,000 in ordinary collection of rates in 1905–1906, and in addition they lost to the Glasgow Parish Council £8,000. That is to say, they did not collect £33,000 worth of rates which might have been collected, had they been collected by men who knew their job.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what proportion of these rates lost were relieved on account of poverty by the corporation?

Sir S. CHAPMAN: That does not enter into the question at all. They were rates that ought to have been collected by the Glasgow Corporation. Sometimes, these men have to make as many as 52 calls in a year for a comparatively small sum.

Mr. MacLAREN: That is once a week.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: That is perfectly accurate. It is very brainy of the hon. Member. It amounted to 18s. 11d. per £100. To-day, under the present system all that the corporation of Glasgow loses in the collection of these rates is 2s. 4d. per £100, so that owners of Glasgow have saved the corporation a very great deal of money, and it is the least the House can do, if these people come forward and say that they are not getting fair remuneration for their work, to let them go before the sheriff and present their case. I for one, who place justice before everything else, will vote in favour of that.

Mr. CLARKE: I rise to support the Amendment so effectively argued by hon. Members on this side of the House. I listened very carefully to the reasoning of the Lord Advocate, and I feel that he left us unconvinced. He was unable to justify his contention that in the last analysis, as the 2½ per cent. has come to be stabilised, so ultimately will the 5 per cent. be stabilised for the collection of rates that have been compounded. Personally, I feel that the issue lies in this particular direction. Is there a reasonable sum that can be paid to the factors for the collection of rates which can be contained within the 2½ per cent. already provided? I submit that there has been no case that would justify us in saying there is not a reasonable and adequate sum for the collection of rates within that 2½ per cent. where the rates are compounded in towns and villages. I come from a town where the majority of the rates are collected by factors, and I recall the fact that, when this 2½ per cent. was imposed for the collection of these rents, the ordinary rent ran from £8 and £9 to £10 a year. To-day, these rents represent a sum from £14 to £15 and £16 more, although in some cases owing to the occupation of individuals—miners who have had to shift from one district to another—the houses became de-controlled, and the landlord was in a position, to exact whatever rent he was able from the new tenants owing to the scarcity of houses. But that increase on the rent carried with it a proportionate increase of taxes. If, when the rent was £9, 2½ per cent. was the sum that was adequate for the collection of these rates, then obviously when the rent went up to £15 to that particular tenant, there was an increase proportionately for each £ on
the rate imposed on the tenant, and an increase to the factor on the collection of the rates. In the same way, it can be reasonably said that there has been another considerable increase in the factors' amount that he is able to collect for the collection of the rates.
It is well known that the rates even on the present increased rent have steadily increased, and so they have reached a sum in the district from which I come of 5s. 6d. to 6s. per £. It may be true to say that unless a case can be made out the sheriff will not agree to an increase beyond the present evidently stabilised 2½ per cent., but I submit that, just as when there was an attempt to increase it at one time when 2½ per cent. was found to be enough and when the much lesser percentage which was given was ultimately increased until the 2½ per cent. became the stabilised amount, so proportionately there will ultimately be 5 per cent. exacted by the factors for the collection of these rates. I submit that these same tenants together with other tenants and ratepayers throughout the burgh will have their assessments increased in proportion as the difference between 2½ per cent. and 5 per cent. will be ultimately imposed. From any point of view that we care to examine this question, it will be admitted that, taking all these factors into consideration, there is no doubt of the fact that the factors are amply remunerated for any service that they give for the collection of the rates in any particular burgh.

Mr. MACLEAN: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland one question which I hope he will answer when he replies to the Debate. It is a question that affects also some of the statements made by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). Was he approached, or was the Scottish Office approached, by any deputation from the Factors' Association in Glasgow or Scotland or by representatives on their behalf, and, if so, was a case stated to warrant the introduction on the Committee stage of an Amendment to the Bill proposing to do certain things which were not in the original Bill? If such representations were made, why has not the Lord Advocate, in making the speech he did to-day, which was the first speech by the Government on this particular proposal, taken the House into his confidence
and made us aware of what was stated on behalf of the house factors? We are told by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) that the factors are losing money. It seems rather peculiar that it should be the Member for South Edinburgh who should have put his name to an Amendment which was going to affect the city of Glasgow. One hears a lot of the hostility between Glasgow and Edinburgh, but it is carrying such hostility to an extreme point when an Edinburgh Member wants to impose an extra 2½ per cent. on the Corporation of Glasgow and leave the Corporation of Edinburgh free. Was that one of the statements made by the house factors' representatives to the Secretary of State for Scotland, that they were losing money, and that the 2½ per cent. did not amply remunerate them for the collection of rates? Did the Secretary of State for Scotland or any member of his staff in the Scottish Office ask the factors or their representatives to prove it, and was the point proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State and his staff?
These points have not been submitted to the House. We have not been taken into the confidence of the Secretary of State or the Government. We are told by the Lord Advocate that this proposal is nothing new, and that it was suggested in 1926. I am not disputing the fact that this proposal or something of this character was in the Bill of 1926. But I ask why the Government, if they had this proposal in mind, did not include it in this Bill as it was originally placed before the House? Why did they include it as a new Clause brought in by Members of their own party? Why did they wait until it appeared on the Order Paper in the form of a new Clause and then suddenly discover that it was something which ought to be in the Bill but which they had forgotten? It appears now in the Bill, but we had no opportunity of discussing it during the Committee stage owing to the Guillotine. The factors are going to get 5 per cent. instead of 2½ per cent., but it is only now, on the Report stage of the Bill, that we have an opportunity of debating the proposal. The House should have had an opportunity of dealing with this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill if it was in the minds of the Government.
The House should have been informed of the arguments in favour of the claim that the factors are losing money through making this collection. The Lord Advocate talked about this proposal as a measure of justice. We should all like to deal out to others the justice which we expect to receive ourselves, and, in this case, we want to see that the other people concerned get justice as well as the factors. We want justice, not merely for the factors, but for the Corporation of Glasgow.
When the Secretary of State accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh and his colleagues, did he notify the Corporation of Glasgow and give them an opportunity of putting their case before him as against the factors' case, or did he merely accept the Clause and leave the corporation to get their first knowledge of it from the amended text of the Bill when it was printed? These are matters which ought to be stated in this House. The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate are not treating the House fairly in this matter. Neither are they treating the corporations fairly. They are dealing with this question, as they have dealt with many other questions during the past two or three years, in a most slovenly fashion. This Bill is going through in the same manner. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead spoke about what the Corporation of Glasgow could do. He said they were not going to be placed at any disadvantage; that they were a wealthy corporation, and, that if the factors applied to have the percentage increased to 5 per cent., the corporation could brief the most expensive counsel. Why should the citizens of Glasgow be expected to spend money on legal costs because of the caprice of the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate in accepting this proposal? Why should the citizens be fined in thousands of pounds in order to justify their position against the claim of the factors?
No reason has been given. We are told that the factors lose money. How much have they lost? Surely 2½ per cent. is a pretty fair percentage for this work. It is only a bookkeeping transaction. They go round and collect the rents and so much of the amount which they collect
and bank has to be transmitted to the Corporation by cheque. There is no extra work. They would have to collect the rents in any case. In what way do they lose? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) pointed out that if they got this extra 2½ per cent. there would not be any additional work. I think the Secretary of State has been badly misled in this matter. He has accepted this Clause rather hurriedly and without proper consideration. If he had listened to representations made on behalf of the side which is going to benefit, then he should, in common justice to the corporations of Scotland, and particularly the Corporation of Glasgow, have given them an opportunity of stating their case and giving their reasons for opposing this Clause.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: As one having some knowledge of factors, I should like the House to understand who it is we are dealing with here, and to whom it is proposed that we should give this increase of remuneration. I would like to point out the attitude taken by this body of men, particularly since the War. This question affects not only Glasgow but my constituency and my constituency has played a particular part in fighting the factors. They fought the factors because the factors dealt very harshly with the working class in Scotland generally, and in the West of Scotland in particular. This is the body of men on whose behalf the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) and the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. R. MacDonald) put down the original proposal. Why did they put their names down? Why did they not put down the name of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper). Their names were put down—with all due respect to them—because their seats are considered safe. [Interruption.] Sir Samuel, you know not what a day may bring forth.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I would point out to the hon. Member that my name is not "Samuel."

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I never accused you of anything of the kind Mr. Hope. I will say of you that hope springs eternal to put me down, but it is individuals whose seats were considered safe by the Government—

Sir S. CHAPMAN: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend—I am sure I can call him so—but will he allow me to say that I did not consult the Government? I never consult Governments at all. I acted on my own responsibility when I put down that Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Well, I will not pursue that any further, but time will tell whether the working class in Scotland will accept this slight that the Government are giving them. I am sorry the right hon. Member for Hillhead is not in his place, because he has taken a deep interest in this Bill, but on every occasion on which he has risen to speak it has been to down my class, just as on every occasion on which the Secretary of State for Scotland has risen it has been to do the same thing. If ever there was a class piece of legislation, it is this that we are now discussing. We are being asked to give an increase to a body of men who are fairly well paid at the moment, as pay goes. When the working class had to accept reductions in wages, when they were up against it, when they were away fighting for their country, the Government of the moment are proposing to convey great favours to these same factors, namely, to give them double their wages. It is not a case of another two shillings a week here, but they are going to get double their wages. Just fancy any section of the working class having the audacity to make application for double the wages they are getting now! I would like to see the part which the right hon. Member for Hillhead or the Secretary of State for Scotland would play in that event.
But that is exactly what is happening now, and those same factors, when the war was on, took advantage of the men being away fighting on the fields of Flanders to increase the rents. They brought up before the Rent Court in Glasgow 400 cases to be tried, because they could not pay increases in rent, and out of those 400 cases 200 had either their son or their father fighting on the bloody fields of Flanders to defend them from the Germans, from the enemy. Here was their enemy at that time—the factor. The case was so very bad that we stopped work. I led a thousand men in from Parkhead and defied Sheriff Fyfe in the Court in Glasgow to give a decision against those poor people, with
the result that Sheriff Fyfe asked the representative of the factor—Mr. Gunn was the lawyer's name—if he was prepared to take the responsibility for stopping the Clyde, and Mr. Gunn said "No." The Sheriff said "Well, neither am I," and he dismissed the case. But that could not continue. That meant that we in Glasgow were defying the law. Lloyd George was then the Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is hardly relevant to the question of increasing the percentage to the factors.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hold, with all due respect to you, Mr. Hope, that I am showing the type of individuals and the part that they played in this country, and its relation to this increase. I am giving their history—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite in order in speaking about the factors, but he mentioned by name the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, which seems hardly relevant.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg your pardon. If that is all the crime that I have committed, it is the easiest thing in the world to remedy it, and to say the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I am sorry I called him by his name. He will be known in another world by some name, and he himself will know it when the mists have rolled away. As I was saying when you put me down or corrected me, Mr. Hope, the fact that we were defying the law of the land could not be allowed to continue. We had defied the Sheriff to put into operation what he considered the law, because we had the whip hand at that time, and we were defending the working class, the women and children of the men who were out fighting the battles in Flanders, and we got maligned all over the country as a result of it. The Government sent down Lord Hunter to make an inquiry into the situation regarding the factors, and Lord Hunter came down, after having a consultation with another gentleman regarding single apartment houses in Glasgow. Who was he? He was Lord Salisbury. What knowledge had he about the factors' business in Glasgow and single apartments? It is true that Lord Salisbury was born in one apartment, because he could not be born in more than one
at a time, but he was born at Hatfield House, where there are nearly 300 apartments.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That again is hardly relevant. I do not see how the question of the payment of factors depends on where Lord Salisbury was born.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That may be, but I am drawing the attention of the country to the part played by the actual individuals, not their grandfathers, nor their fathers, but the actual factors now, during the most trying period of the War, during the most trying time that this country has ever passed through. The factors, these bloodsuckers, played that part. This Commission came down, and Lord Hunter reported the state of affairs to the then Coalition Government, with the result that an Order-in-Council was passed which stated that for the duration of the War and six months afterwards there would be no increase in the rent. That was because of the part played by the working class in my part of the world. It was not a kind, Christian, Coalition Government that gave Britain that, but it was because the workers on the Clyde fought for the whole of the workers in Britain, and we were slated by everybody all over the place and called traitors to our country. These factors are the individuals who forced us into that position. Then, when the War was finished, the factors made application for increases in rent. They said then that they claimed an increase because tradesmen's wages had increased, etc., but the fact remains that the houses for which they were asking higher rents had been built long before the War. They got 50 per cent. increase in rent. That means they are getting double the amount of money, and they get 2½ per cent. on that, plus the 2½ per cent. on the rates, which again, have been doubled.
The House is making a great mistake when it talks about the factors going round and collecting the money. That is a serious mistake. The factors, particularly in the West of Scotland, of which I can speak authoritatively, have so tyrannised my class that it is no longer necessary for them to go round to collect the rents. The working folk go to the office and pay the rent. That has now become part of the system. If they
send anybody it is the sheriff officer to "poind the gear." I do not want to be in the position of simply calling them names which I am not able to substantiate, and I want to point out these further facts to the House. Prior to the War the factors had to whitewash the houses, because all the old houses in Glasgow were whitewashed. Those who had rooms had the rooms painted, because rooms were painted half way up the wall; though in the more classical parts, where my class live, rooms were papered. All those things were done once a year—whitewashing, painting or papering, and the factors paid for it. The system gradually tapered off until they only gave the people the paint or the paper, leaving them to put it on, and now they give them sweet nothing. They also used to have to whitewash the wash-house, and keep everything there in order, but now they do nothing of the kind. There is no factor within reach of my voice—and some of them are here—who does not know that what I am saying is the absolute truth. That is the part that those individuals have played.
Let us come to what is being discussed at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) says that all they are asking for is justice, and if my memory serves me aright, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) said the same, proving once again that like goes with like, like an auld horse with an auld stone dyke. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead said all they wanted was justice, and that we were making a mistake; that we were not to run away with the idea that the Government were out to give them 5 per cent. If we did not know them, it would not be so bad for hon. Members like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead to rise up there with a face of brass—I am sorry he is not in his place; but of course he will know of it all right—and to say that. He can go to Clydebank, never mind Shettleston, and discuss that. He said we were running away with a mistaken idea in saying that the Government were out to give them an increase, and that he was rather of the opinion that the factors were possibly taking a risk here, because it was going to be left to the Sheriffs, and that by the learned counsel that Glasgow would be able to employ we might be
able to prove our point. Bui Clydebank may not be able to employ such learned counsel. I would draw attention to the introduction again of these learned gentlemen, because with them it is a case of pounds, shillings and pence. I can see that there is an idea here that the legal fraternity are going to get some bones to pick. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead and the Lord Advocate are looking well after the legal fraternity.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be left with the Sheriff. I do not know about that. It has been said repeatedly across the Floor of the House that they would rather deal with the Sheriff than with members of my class. I differ there; I am all out for democracy. We have to pay a price for democracy, and we are paying for it in Glasgow at the moment in the matter of the licensing court, etc. But I am still prepared to pay a big price for democracy. It is the best thing we have yet evolved for the government of any country, and I am not in favour of handing away our rights to the legal fraternity under the name of Sheriff. But, apart from that, we must remember that the Sheriff will naturally say, "If the House of Commons had considered that 2½ per cent. was sufficient, they would never have remitted the matter to me." If the Government put this on the Statute Book, then it follows as night follows day that they are giving a lead to the Sheriffs to grant an increase.
The factors in Glasgow are now collecting £1,000,000, and they are getting £26,000 for collecting it. I ask Tory Members to watch what is happening, and I warn them that we shall make the welkin ring if they put this proposal on the Statute Book. I want hon. Members clearly to understand that the factors are collecting £1,000,000 and the cost of that collection is £26,000. The head of the collecting department of the City of Glasgow is Mr. Lawrence Mitchell, who is a very fine man. That official and his staff collect over £11,000,000, and the whole of that operation costs £53,000, or just about double the cost of the collection of £1,000,000 by the factors. The Government are now proposing to give the factors in Glasgow the same amount for collecting £1,000,000 as is paid to the collecting department of the Glasgow
Corporation for collecting £11,000,000. That is what this proposal really means.

Sir J. GILMOUR: indicated dissent.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Secretary of State for Scotland shakes his head, but the amount is really twice £26,000 for collecting £1,000,000. This means that the advocates of private enterprise are again playing into the hands of their friends. When it is worked out, this proposal really moans that the cost of collecting £1,000,000 by the factors will be eleven times the amount which it would cost if the collecting of the money was done under a Socialist regime. The working classes are the actual producers of the wealth of this country. Remember that the factors produce absolutely nothing; all they do is to take. The factors are not satisfied with what they are getting, and they want more. All the time it is a case of "Give, give, give," and they are never satisfied. On every occasion, when the working classes have made any attempt, not to obtain an increase of wages, but simply to maintain their standard of life, the Tory Government have used all their power against them. The most powerful Government in the world have used all their machinery to smash the working classes, who are the actual producers of the wealth of the country. Did the Government come to the assistance of the miners? I think we have proved across the Floor of the House that the Government never did anything for the miners, and yet they have gone out of their way to bring in a proposal like the one we are discussing, and they are trying to rush it through. What did the Government do when the miners were up against them? Lord Hailsham at that time introduced a Bill to increase the working hours of the miners—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member was in order in talking about the factors, but he is going beyond that now.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want the working-classes to understand what the Government are capable of. I have tried to show what the Government have done, and I think I have done so.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I want to point out, in the first place, that before you alter an Act
of Parliament you ought to make out a prima facie case for the alteration of the law. Any person who wishes to alter an Act of Parliament ought to show that the particular Act he is dealing with operates partially and unjustly on the persons who are working under it. It is a very ordinary political principle that when you are going to alter an Act you should come to this House and show that that Act is working in a way which causes undue hardship to certain of His Majesty's subjects. Up to the present, we have not had a single argument either from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) or the Lord Advocate, to show that the Act has deprived a single house factor in Scotland of anything that was necessary to enable him to lead an essentially clean and happy life. It has not been shown that this Act deprives any of the factors of their legitimate income.
The Lord Advocate said that the case could be proved before the sheriff. The Tory Members of this House are constantly telling us that Parliament should be allowed to decide these questions. I quite agree that Parliament ought to decide these questions and that they ought not to be left to somebody outside Parliament to decide. Let me give as an illustration the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. At the present time, power is placed outside the Minister of Labour to say who is to receive and who is not to receive unemployment benefit. The result is that we cannot criticise the Minister of Labour in cases where unemployment benefit is refused. Instead of the Secretary of State for Scotland being obliged to come to this House to be subjected to criticism, he delegates his job to a sheriff, because he knows that the sheriff cannot be criticised for the action which the Secretary of State for Scotland knows that he will take. It is true, of course, that the sheriff might not do it, but let us be perfectly frank about this business. Who has pioneered this proposal through the House? Let the hon. Member for South Edinburgh be honest, straightforward; let him tell the truth. Where has he been spending his time during these debates? He has been spending his whole time in personal conversation with the factors; they are his driving force.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: I do not know whether I am quite in order in interrupting, but I go for information where I can get it. The Government sometimes have to go into the gallery behind the Chair, and, when I want facts, I go and get them from people who can give me those facts.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is true. The people from whom the hon. Member has been getting his facts are the house factors; they are the people who have been priming him for his case. That proves what I say, that all his information, his whole force, has come from the factors. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) has given us some history, and I, too, may be excused if I go back, not so far as he did, but to 1926, when my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie and I played a fairly prominent part, and when, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I may say so in fairness to you, you played a part well-becoming the Chair. You exercised your discretion with fairness and justice, and showed yourself to have no bias in any way. I say that in passing. In 1926, my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie raised first the point of order which ultimately led to the decision, and I assisted him in whatever fashion I could, as I generally do. Some people criticise this group, but at least they are loyal to each other.
9.0 p.m.
I then went back to my constituency in Glasgow, my native town. I wish that, particularly, the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. R. MacDonald) who pioneered this proposal, would go back to his Division as often as I go to mine. If he had done that, he would never have put down this proposal. When I went back, what did I find? I have in my Division possibly the most prominent house factor in Scotland—a man named Gilmour. He is no relative of the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State knows him very well. He is, perhaps, the most famous factor in Scotland. When I got back, I found a letter from him written in very cruel language. As many hon. Members know, I live in my Division, and I have to go to house factors, not because I like them, but because I have to choose between families being in the street and being in a house; I have to plead with the factors for justice. He wrote to me
saying that in the past he had always been fairly decent to me, but that my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie and I had been the means of smashing this Amendment in the 1926 Act, and it might interfere with the happy relationships that had formerly subsisted.
Did that show that the factors were not going to get an increase from the sheriff? Why did he write that letter? Was it because he thought that no increase was to be given? Not a bit of it. He wrote that letter because he knew that our action was keeping him from getting the increase, because he knew that, if this matter goes to the sheriff, an increase is bound to follow. The factors are up in London to-day. I will plead guilty to having this in common with them, that, to some extent at least, they are Scotch. I do not like, nor do they like, to spend any money if it is possible to keep from spending it. They have paid first-class sleeper fares to come down here, and are staying in good hotels—not the Shaftesbury, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, but good hotels. That is because the sheriff will give them that 2½ per cent. They have done it because they know their sheriffs. I know the sheriffs, and they have done it because they know that the sheriff will grant this request.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead rises to support this proposal. I must say that those who have done so have shown, not political wisdom, not even political madness, but almost, as I said once of the Home Secretary, stupid honesty. But as for the hon. Member for Cathcart who has said not a word to ventilate his opinions, but has run away whipped and not come near the House, contempt even is too much to give him. I come here because I want to prove what I am now saying. This, as I have said, means an increase of rates, and, as everybody knows, someone has got to pay for it. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead would not disagree with me in this, that someone has to find the £26,400. No one would say that the extra £26,400 drops from the clouds; it has got to be found, and it must be found from rates.
A fundamental theory which I have tried to practise, and to put into my political life, is that, if I have a pound
to spend, being a man of narrow income, I have to choose how I shall spend that pound. There may be eight or nine things that I would desire, but I must choose the thing for which there is the greatest need. If the Glasgow Corporation can raise an extra £26,000, they ought to choose what is the greatest need, and how they can best spend the money. I would put this to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh: Would he say that the greatest need for £26,000 in Glasgow at the present time is that of the 230 house factors? I put that to him as a business man. Everyone who has been on the Glasgow Town Council knows that, at every meeting one went to, there was always this need of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson), and other Members who were on the Council with me, know that the choice had constantly to be made as to what was the greatest and the most urgent need. Even if I went further than my colleagues and granted that a case could be made out, it does not come within the first twelve needs that ought to be satisfied. There sits the Secretary of State, and the Under-Secretary beside him. I can tell almost every street and every close in their Divisions. What is a greater need? Last week the Secretary of State, with a cruelty and a brutality that he ought to be ashamed of, wrote to the Govan Parish Council refusing to allow them to pay 1s. 6d. more in order that the children might be fed. Was it not a greater need that the Glasgow Corporation should spend this £26,000 in feeding the children than in giving 230 house factors this extra money? You must justify this as a business proposition.
The Lord Advocate tried to answer the hon. Member for Camlachie by saying the £11,000,000 that the corporation collect is not equivalent to the £1,000,000 that the factors collect, because it is tenement property and they are a poorer class of people. Let me take it even on that ground. He has no defence. The Secretary of State ought to know, if he knows his business, that the Glasgow Corporation do other work than that. There are altogether 3,800 slum clearance houses in Glasgow. Every one of them pays rates and rent combined. In addition to that they are the very poorest section of the community. Eighty per cent. of the occupants
have not worked for years and are living entirely on parish council relief, which is less than unemployment benefit, and yet the Glasgow Corporation collect from their slum clearance houses and they pay their collectors better than the private factor does, and give them houses and give them better conditions, and yet, collecting from the very poor, it does not cost them the 2½ per cent. that is now being demanded by the factors.
What is the answer? There is only one answer. The Secretary of State ought to take the responsibility himself. He ought to say, "I will make inquiries. I will take the responsibility for the issue. I will get to business and defend it." But he knows that he could not defend it before a working-class audience. With that lack of courage which is so characteristic of him, he shoves the duty on to others. He shoves it on to the Sheriff, who cannot meet criticism in the-House of Commons. Some of us are criticised for usurping the authority of the House, for not liking Parliament and for wishing to throw away democratic institutions. It is we who want to preserve the right of Parliamentary control to-night, the right of Parliament to say what is not and what is to be granted to these people.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead only speaks in the House on one subject—I was almost going to say when his paymasters are asking him to call the tune—when he is speaking for some vested interest. He has poor people in his Division. There are poor people in the Cathcart Division. The hon. Member has never once in the House raised his voice to ease the conditions of the unemployed in his Division. Neither has the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman). Every time he intervenes it is on behalf of the rich, powerful vested interests, leaving the poor utterly defenceless and without a voice. I often wonder what is wrong with the House. I wonder whether it is incapacity, stupidity, lack of knowledge, or cruel heartedness, whether it is a desire to rob and plunder or whether it is foolishness. I had a majority at the last election of, I think, about 9,000. It is so great that I sometimes forget to count. As the result of the Government action it will be at least doubled.
I would prefer that the Secretary of State should withdraw his proposal. It is wrong and defenceless. Do not tell us the sheriff has to decide it. The factors know they will get it. The Glasgow Corporation is against the increase, but that does not mean that they will continue against it. The house factors know their Glasgow Council and they think if they get time, they can organise their forces so that even the council will not brief a lawyer to fight this proposal. That is behind their minds. They know the value of political agitation. This is a wrong proposal. For the Secretary of State on the one hand to refuse small children, the weakest and most defenceless section of our community, 1s. 6d. to feed and clothe and comfort them, and on the other hand to give to a class that is doing no useful service an extra £26,000 is an outrage which only a man devoid either of social decency or knowledge would care to defend.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The first aspect of the case concerning this proposal which, I think, is particularly objectionable, is the procedure that has been adopted in order to get it put through. We have a very clear recollection of the circumstances surrounding it, and therefore it is not necessary for me to traverse those points. In view of what has taken place, the honourable course for the Government to have taken would have been to have placed this proposal in the Bill at the outset if they were convinced that the matter was perfectly in order. The Lord Advocate said that the Government had had no representation from any other council. I want to say, that as far as the Dundee Town Council are concerned, they telegraphed their opposition to this course being adopted. They were decidedly opposed to it, and I must say on behalf of the council that we are not getting the treatment that we as an important body ought to receive. Undoubtedly Glasgow holds the pre-eminent position, and the strength of their case has been fully submitted. When I was asked to meet the factors in my own city, I was not impressed with the figures which they put forward. When one considers that one of the strong points made to-night is that facts and figures have proved to be sufficiently effective in support of the proposal, it is remarkable
that no one standing at the Treasury-Box has presented any such evidence to substantiate the insertion of this Clause. I am all the more convinced of the inadvisability of this plan being adopted when I recollect that those people whose rates are being exacted in this particular matter are having to pay proportionately heavier rents even than people in comparatively good circumstances.
It seems very strange that such a proposal, which unquestionably will involve an increase of rating upon the general body of ratepayers, should be adopted in order to benefit those who will carry out their accustomed duties without any actual increase of effort or labour. I submit that if there is a case for payment being increased, such increase should go to the house factors or, perhaps, to those who represent the house factors in the collection of the rates. When we have these factors engaged regularly in the collection of rents, and at the same time collecting the rates without any extra expenditure involved, how does this other phase of the matter arise concerning an appeal to the Sheriff? Why should the Sheriff be called in to adjudicate upon the question as to the amount which a town council consider advisable to pay in respect of given services? This seems entirely extraneous. Without making any criticism whatever concerning the Sheriff, I think he would be likely to say: "We will grant the additional money." Why should there be this legal jurisdiction upon a simple question which is regularly dealt with by the town council? If a corporation engage any official or any servant to undertake a given duty, there should be no question of an appeal to any outside personality either on the legal bench or elsewhere in order to determine whether or not the council are giving the requisite salary or wage.
The real reason for the introduction of this Clause is, that it derogates a duty to the Sheriff, and it represents an endeavour on the part of the Government to secure relief from the onus of responsibility. I submit that if the procedure, which was adopted towards the end of the War of preventing rents being unduly increased had been adopted earlier in the War, and arrangements had been made for ratepayers and tenants to pay in proportion to the wages that they were
receiving at the time, matters might have been even more advantageous to those house-owners and rent contributors. The increased rents allowed included a provision for repairs, which are not being effected. The landlords, whether they retain any portion of this increased allowance or not, are not doing justice by the people in the matter of the rents which are now being exacted.
The fact that this matter is being slipped through in such an insidious fashion fashion reflects very great discredit upon the Government, especially when they have not given a fair opportunity to public bodies to examine the situation. I believe that if we had had a fair opportunity, facts and figures would have been presented from the point of view of householders and the ratepayers generally. I think the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was pretty well knocked on the head. We all recognise the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He is, perhaps, one of the most outstanding representatives of class interests to be found sitting on the other side. What is being proposed on behalf of the factors shows how a numerically small force can bring powerful influence to bear upon the Government. I believe that this particular proposal will accentuate the feelings of the many who are concerned with the payment of heavy rents and will cause them to express their views in the way that we should like to see them expressed at the General Election.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I have listened to the major portion of this Debate on a subject which undoubtedly raises keen interest among people in Scotland. I think that the onus for the change rests upon the Government, who must prove their case. I listened carefully to the speech of the Lord Advocate, and I am unable to recollect from his remarks that the actual cost of collection in the various burghs was higher than that which is presently allowed in the 1911 Act. But I am bound to say, that if the cost of collection is higher than that which is presently allowed, the factors have a case to submit their point of view to the Sheriff for this reason. There is a bargain between the factors and the Corporation which is not one between a willing buyer and a willing seller. A duty is laid upon the factors to collect
the rates, and this House is always tender to the interests of those upon whom it places a responsibility. At the same time, it does place responsibility upon members of the Government who come to this House to make quite clear to hon. Members that they have studied the figures and to mention those particular figures to the House so that the House itself can judge the broad issues of the case. If they could substantiate their point of view by accurate facts gleaned, not from small burghs such as have been mentioned this evening, but from large burghs throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, then, as this bargain is not one between a willing buyer and a willing seller, I would support the Government in this matter.

Mr. MAXTON: I would be ashamed to face my constituents in Bridgeton if I did not associate myself with the protests that have been made by my colleagues. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) back in his place, but I regret very much that on his first intervention in debate that I have heard for a very considerable period, he should have felt it necessary, representing, as he does, a constituency with all the poverty there is there, to enter a plea on behalf of this very comfortable section of the community. I do not know whether he is voicing the official policy of his party or merely his personal point of view, but I can assure him that, as far as the West of Scotland is concerned, this will be a more vital issue in the General Election than Free Trade or Protection.
The ruling that the Chairman gave on this matter is one that we, of course, accept, and is right according to House of Commons rules, but I want to ask the representatives of the Government if they think they are playing the game in dragging in an issue of this sort into a Bill of this description? This Bill is said to be the great Governmental contribution to the rehabilitation of Britain's trade and commerce. It is said they have the intention in Scotland to raise our whole educational and humanitarian standard. It is the great keystone of Tory policy for the rehabilitation of this country, and yet just because a very few property owners from Glasgow have brought a little pressure upon them, the
Government are prepared to shove into the middle of this great policy a trivial question of how a couple of hundred people are to be remunerated. It is a question of piece-work that is raised, and that is the essence of it. In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman upsets the ordinary method of employment of town clerks, parish clerks, sanitary inspectors, medical officers, tramway conductors and drivers, street cleaners, lamp lighters, electricians, and gas workers. Is there any suggestion in any Clause of the Bill that all the employés, whose normal methods of employment are upset and changed by this Bill, are going to have their remuneration especially laid down by Statute? I can imagine that the kind of argument is: "Well, we have given something to the great brewery companies, and tobacco combines and we have given a present to the Scotch landowners. Why should not we give a little present to these humble millions that serve these various interests so well?" That is the only argument of which I can think for singling out the house agents and factors for special consideration in a Bill of this description.
I am closely associated with a special political organisation in this country that stands for a living wage for all, but I never dreamed in my consideration of how that would progress in British politics, that a start would be made by giving statutory rights to house factors. The one argument that I can see for it is this: We have always tried in this country to treat our heroes with special kindness, and lavishness, and, as far as my constituency is concerned, the men who are prepared to go round week after week and take money from the people for the houses they are letting to them are heroes of the highest type. I was at a house last week in Rumford Street in the Dalmarock Ward of the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow. It was a shocking hovel that was tumbling down about the ears of the poor woman who was struggling with her children to live there, making a tremendous battle against poverty. It was a house that was condemned as insanitary by the sanitary authorities, and waiting for demolition. Every week the factor of the City of Glasgow walks along and puts out his hand for the rates, and it is said that you must pay him more for doing it. This Tory Government in the House of
Commons say: "This is a man that deserves well of his country. He is prepared to do this week after week. He is a hero, and we are prepared to do for him what we do for no other public employé under this Bill. We will guarantee him an opportunity for a rise of wages at a time when wages in every other direction are going steadily down." I was looking at the Ministry of Labour figures, and again there is a downward tendency in wages at a time when the cost-of-living is going up. Yet the Government come forward and say: "We will allow this body an opportunity of having an increase of 100 per cent. on their present standard."
The right hon. Gentleman also is a man of courage, because he has stood at the Treasury Box day after day on this

Bill and defended the most indefensible propositions, but I hope that he will not persist in attempting to do what he knows is a trick on the House of Commons, and nothing more. The Lord Advocate knows it is a trick, and the Under-Secretary knows it. It is not playing the game by the House of Commons to drag this in from nowhere, and shove it into the middle of this Bill that they regard as an important Measure. I protest against such a trick being played upon me, and I shall protest very loudly in the City of Glasgow.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 81.

Division No. 256.]
AYES.
[9.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. O. (I. of W.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacIntyre, Ian


Apsley, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
Macquisten, F. A.


Atkinson, C.
Fielden, E. B.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Balniel, Lord
Ford, Sir P. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gates, Percy
Margesson, Captain D.


Berry, Sir George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bethel, A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Betterton, Henry B.
God, Sir Park
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gower, Sir Robert
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grant, Sir J. A.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hacking, Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Nuttall, Ellis


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir George
Oakley, T.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harrison, G. J. C.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Owen, Major G.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Pennefather, Sir John


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Carver, Major W. H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cassets, J. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hills, Major John Waller
Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Radford, E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Raine, Sir Walter


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Christie, J. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ropner, Major L.


Couper, J. B.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruqgles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Iveagh, Countess of
Rye, F. G.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker, Herbert William
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Sandon, Lord


Ellis, R. G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Savery, S. S.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lumley, L. R.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Skelton, A. N.
Tinne, J. A.
Withers, John James


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Tomlinson, R. P.
Womersley, W. J.


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Wettm'eland)
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)



Styles, Captain H. W.
Wayland, Sir William A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Wells, S. R.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.


Templeton, W. P.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Purcell, A. A.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben


Barnes, A.
Hollins, A.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barr, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shield, G. W.


Bellamy, A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Benn, Wedgwood
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bondfield, Margaret
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromley, J.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
MacLaren, Andrew
Viant, S. P.


Cape, Thomas
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Clarke, A. B.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wellock, Wilfred


Cluse, W. S.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Westwood, J.


Cove, W. G.
Maxton, James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Grundy, T. W.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

CLAUSE 23.—(Provision as to borrowing by county or town councils.)

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 32, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
or shall affect the common good of a burgh or the revenue thereof or any existing power to borrow on the security of such common good or revenues.
(2) Every enactment authorising a county or town council to borrow money for the purpose of meeting any expenditure of a capital nature shall have effect as if it provided that the council shall not without the consent of the Central Department so borrow unless the resolution to borrow has been agreed to by two-thirds of the members of the council present and voting at the meeting at which such resolution is passed.
The House may remember that on this Clause I undertook to consider a point that was raised as to whether the spreading of the security in regard to any money borrowed for the benefit of one particular department should be spread over the whole of the rates; whether the common good should be included in the
catholic security or whether it was not more convenient and better finance that the common good should be kept outside. I came to the conclusion that it was better that the common good should be kept outside the scope of this security. The first part of the Amendment is to make this quite clear. The second subsection deals with another point. Under Sub-section (2) in the original Bill it was provided that borrowing for capital expenditure could only be done where there was a two-thirds majority. We agreed in Committee that we would substitute for the two-thirds majority the consent of the Central Department. We think it better that consent should only be required where there was less than a two-thirds majority. That is a much more practical and businesslike proposal. Unfortunately, the House will notice that in printing this Clause the printers have omitted the whole of Sub-section (2) and, therefore, we have had to put in Sub-section (2).

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 24.—(Mitigation of liability of county councils and town councils of large burghs for temporary loans raised under 11 & 12 Geo. 5, c. 64.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 33, line 2, to leave out the words "or the Department of Health."
The dropping out of the words "the Department of Health" is due to the fact that these loans would have been made before the Department came into existence. All the Amendments to this Clause are purely drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In line 11, leave out the words "or the Department of Health."

Leave out from the second word "the," in line 23, to the word "five," in line 25, and insert instead thereof the words
said board, and had interest been payable thereon at the rate of.

In line 33, leave out the words "or the Department."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 27.—(Provision for treatment of sick persons.)

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 39, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
(9) Nothing in this Section or in any scheme shall diminish or otherwise affect the duty of the council to provide relief for the poor.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: It is not necessary to have these words in the Bill. The hon. Member will realise that any such specification as this will weaken the rest of the Clause. All the residual liabilities on the parish or Poor Law authorities remain unchanged, and any specification of certain duties would merely weaken the responsibility which falls on them for all these residual functions.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 29.—(Religious instruction in schools.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BARR:

To leave out the Clause.

Mr. BARR: We entertain certain objections, which I do not propose to state now, to the plebiscite set up in this Clause, but as there is a desire to get forward with business I do not propose to move.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 39, line 37, to leave out the words "the provision of."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 33.—(County medical officer of health and sanitary inspector to act for small burghs.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 42, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) Except with the sanction of the Department of Health no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, be appointed sanitary inspector of a county or burgh unless he possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the Department of Health.
This is further to the discussion we had when the Committee decided that the sanitary inspector of a small burgh should not necessarily by the county sanitary inspector. We have received representations from various local authorities to the effect that the Clause, as originally introduced, should be restored, but we consider that, having discussed the matter in Committee and having come to an agreement, we could not in any way attempt to minimise the agreement arrived at, but that we should require to reserve the right to take some further steps to preserve the intention of the Government to raise the status of sanitary inspectors. Consequently a provision that they should have certain qualifications has been inserted. I understand that this meets with the approval of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Repeal of 5 Edw. 7, c. 18.)

Amendment made:

In page 42, line 10, leave out the word "Board," and insert instead the words "Department of Health."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 39.—(Rateable value of industrial or freight transport lands and heritages.)

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 44, line 36, after the word "providing," to insert the words "police or other."
I am moving this in order to get a statement from the Secretary of State. This is an important matter from the point of view of four statutory dock authorities: Leith, Dundee, Aberdeen and Greenock. I will put the case from the point of view of Leith, which really illustrates the difficulty. I gladly acknowledge the intentions of the Government in the insertion of the Sub-section in the Clause, and the House will see that it is intended to meet the special difficulty of certain statutory dock authorities. The position may be viewed from three points of view; the point of view of the State, the point of view of the local authorities and the point of view of the statutory dock trusts. The difficulty arises in this way, that under various Acts of Parliament these dock authorities provide certain services which are normally provided by the local authorities, the cleaning of streets, lighting and policing, but because these statutory authorities are not recognised by the State as local authorities in the ordinary sense the police expenditure does not rank for grant.
Our position is this. Under local Acts, because these dock authorities provide these particular services, there is already a remission of rates amounting at the moment in the case of Edinburgh and Leith to 75 per cent. of the normal assessment. There is a double difficulty to be rectified. The Government have power under the Clause by Order to
make such modifications of Amendments of the provisions of the local Act as are equitable in the circumstances.
The words are vague. What we desire is a definite statement from the Government as to their intentions. There is perfect good feeling between the Edinburgh Corporation and the dock authorities at Leith. If they could make arrangements to meet the difficulty, they would do so. Since the docks are presently de-rated, the total assessment of the Leith dock will not rank for grant for loss of rates on the standard year under the Bill; and since the State does not recognise the police service—amounting to £13,000 a year in Leith—as undertaken by the local authority, that does
not rank for grant. So that even if there were an arrangement now inside this year, unless something special is done by the Government, neither the sum granted for the police on the one hand nor the loss of rates on the other will rank for the purposes of the Bill.
I would like to argue the whole case as to what I believe is the double reason for the present situation. It is first based, I believe, on an official fallacy that these particular dock undertakings are private profit-earning undertakings. They are nothing of the kind. They not merely do the watching and lighting and cleaning within their own boundaries, but actually have some streets that are used by the public outside those boundaries. Secondly, I believe the real problem has been the view of the Treasury from the point of view of Treasury stringency.

Mr. BENN: I beg to second the Amendment.
The position as regards Aberdeen is this: Certain services are rendered, in the way of police, which do not rank for grant, and if we do not get our way this proposal will cost Aberdeen £3,000 a year. Moreover, these same services, although exactly the same as ordinary police services, do not rank for police grant. It is too late for us to readjust matters, because the standard year is drawing to an end. Will the Secretary of State consider the question of an equivalent grant, and under Sub-section (2) will he make an adjustment which in equity is right although technically wrong?

10.0 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Either the Amendment adds nothing to the Clause, or else it is out of order, because it will alter the amount of the compensation. If it is merely useless, which I think it is, we certainly cannot accept it. I understand, however, that the purpose in moving the Amendment is to ascertain what is the intention of the Sub-section. It is quite clear, in the first instance, that it cannot affect the standard year. Secondly, it gives power in effect to rewrite the local Act. As I understand the Sub-section, it gives the Secretary of State power to re-write the local Act so as to express in full what is really the truth of the transaction, that is to say, that a service is provided or paid for which the local authority would otherwise provide, and
the cost of that service is reflected in a reduction of the rates.

Mr. BROWN: Is it the intention of the Government to make this order to rewrite before the end of the standard year?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not think that is possible.

Mr. BROWN: Then from the point of view of the authorities it is useless.

Mr. BENN: Will the Government use all their powers, so far as Aberdeen is concerned, to remedy what is admitted to be an injustice?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The powers will certainly be used in fair cases, but there are cases, of course, where it does not necessarily follow that the service which is provided is one which the local authority would either be bound or likely to supply itself.

Mr. BROWN: In view of that explanation, which I do not regard as very satisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 40.—(Adjustments as to rating relief between landlords and tenants.)

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 45, line 43, to leave out the word "three," and to insert instead thereof the word "four."

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, the Government cannot accept this Amendment. As I understand it, it seeks to provide that the industrial occupier shall recover from the owner four times his share instead of three times his share as provided under the Bill; in other words to recover more than the owner's share. That, of course, is quite inequitable.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 42.—(Amendment of Section 14 (1) of Act of 1926.)

Amendment made:

In page 46, line 37, at the end, insert the words:
(2) Where a domestic water rate is leviable within a district under the Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1891, in respect of any agricultural lands and heritages, then either the valuation roll for the district, made up in accordance with the
provisions of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, shall, in addition to the other particulars required, show what would have been the rateable value of the said agricultural lands and heritages if this Act (other than Sub-section (5) of Section thirty-eight) had not passed, or a supplementary valuation roll in such form as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe shall be made up, showing what would have been the rateable value of such agricultural lands and heritages if this Act (other than as aforesaid) had not passed, and the provisions of the said Act of 1854 shall apply accordingly with respect to the further particulars included in the valuation roll or with respect to the supplementary valuation roll as the case may be.
(3) The assessor of a county in making up the valuation roll of the county shall distinguish in the roll lands and heritages situated within the boundaries of each district of a district council."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 54.—(Additional Exchequer grants to large burghs.)

Amendment made:

In page 56, line 6, leave out the words "this Section," and insert instead thereof the words "Section fifty-four of this Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

CLAUSE 55.—(Payment of supplementary Exchequer grants to large burghs.)

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 56, line 37, to leave out the words "a sum equal to one-half such aggregate after deducting therefrom," and to insert instead thereof the words "such additional sum as together with."
I would like to move this Amendment in somewhat different form from that in which it is on the Paper. This Amendment and the following one are really drafting Amendments. The purpose of paragraph (b, i) is to get at a sum for the purpose of making up the losses and gains of separate rating areas within one local authority's area towards which the Exchequer makes good half the loss and the other half has to be contributed by the winning or gaining authority. The words in the Bill are: "a sum equal to one-half such aggregate after deducting therefrom." The word "therefrom" means that the deduction must be taken from the one-half, but it might be suggested to mean deduction from the aggregate, and we attempted another draft which I am moving in the amended form. It is putting it the other way, and I will ask the House to take it on trust.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 56, line 40, at the end, insert the words:
is equal to one-half of the said aggregate amount of such losses."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 58.—(Power to reduce grants for inefficiency.)

Amendment made:

In page 58, line 5, after the word "efficiency" insert the words "and progress."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 58, to leave out from the word "that," in line 25, to the word "to," in line 26, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the Secretary of State shall not make such a reduction until he has made and caused.

Sir J. GILMOUR: We accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 59.—(Application of Exchequer grants to county and town councils.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 58, line 34, after the word "education," to insert the words "or police."
This is a drafting Amendment, so that the authority will be dealing not only with education but police.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 64.—Investigation of working of rules of Sixth Schedule, Parts III and IV.)

Amendments made:

In page 62, line 22, leave out the words "Department of Health," and insert instead thereof the words "Secretary of State."

In line 25, leave out the word "them," and insert instead thereof the word "him."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Consequential Amendment made.

CLAUSE 65.—(Interpretation.)

Amendments made:

In page 63, line 9, after the word "men," insert the words "or women."

In page 64, line 7, after the word "parish," insert the words:
so far as within the district of one district council.

Leave out from the word "who," in line 36, to the end of line 39, and insert instead thereof the words:
are for the time being recorded as being unemployed for the purpose of the returns of unemployment made by the Minister of Labour."—[Major Elliot.]

CLAUSE 68.—(Orders.)

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I move this Amendment in order to see that fair play should be obtained. If the Clause had been clear as to what the Bill was to do, there would have been no need for a governing Clause such as this. Sub-section (3) reads:
The Secretary of State may by order make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act as may seem to him to be necessary in order to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act or in order to make an equitable adjustment or apportionment of any expenditure or payment under the local Act consequent on the carrying into effect of the provisions of this Act.
This is a very big power to give to any person. We talk about Mussolini and about dictators but we propose to give to the Secretary of State for Scotland power to make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act as may seem to him—not to Parliament—to be necessary in order to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Measure. We on this side who have been used to practical administration and to the drafting of rules for practical purposes hold the view that unless you can see things clearly before you you cannot put them down in practical words. This Clause simply means that the preceding Clauses are not clear and that they do not hang together. They cannot be left as they are. It is necessary to put in this Clause because it is felt that the other Clauses may not work. You insert this Clause in order to protect yourselves against your own inefficiency. I do not blame the draftsmen so much as those who put forward these inadequate ideas. These matters call for real vision such as an engineer uses when he can visualise a machine working before be begins to draw a plan of it. But here we have the dullards of the Tory party, in their last year of office, trying to do something spectacular. Well, it may be spectacular but it is very impracticable. This Clause, in effect, says that if the Bill does not
work in the ordinary way powers are to be taken to make it work. All the traffic is to be set aside in order to allow this Juggernaut to pass along.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Clause is a specimen of the legislation which the Government tell us is progressive. It is nothing else but a reversion to mediaevalism. It is the sort of thing against which our forefathers fought when Kings in former days attempted it. Now the servants of the King are asking for powers which the Members of this House have withheld from their Masters in the past. This Clause includes the power not only to vary the provisions of this Act, but to vary the provisions of other Acts. The English Members did not put up a very good fight, generally speaking, on their Bill, but all honour to them for the fact that, at any rate, they fought well against the proposal to give the English Minister power to vary any provisions in the English Measure which he thought necessary. This proposal goes much further. It enables the Secretary of State
to make provision for any matters incidental to or consequential on any provision of this Act including any incidental or consequential adaptations of the provisions of any Act of Parliament.
I do not believe that any Minister in the last 50 years has demanded powers as wide as that. The Secretary of State may also make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act as may seem to him necessary, in order to make those provisions conform with this Measure. It is time we protested against legislation of this sort, and I hope we shall be joined by Members of all parties and by representatives of all the nationalities in these islands who are represented in this House in objecting to it. I hope if the right hon. Gentleman does not withdraw the Clause that it will be rejected by the House.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), who moved the Amendment to delete the Clause, did not make any mention of the numerous Amendments which are on the Paper in my name in regard to the Clause as it exists in the Bill, and the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who seconded and who spoke so dramatically, seemed to have
forgotten the past history of his party, who, in fact, are as much responsible as any party in the House for the inclusion in Measures of such Clauses as are under discussion at this time. I would say to the hon. and gallant Member that, at any rate, he also has apparently failed to observe any of the Amendments which are down in my name dealing with this Clause, and I would say to the House at once that I agree with most of my colleagues that it would be very undesirable that these powers should be so far extended as to become in any sense a menace, an engine to be used, either by the Minister or by the officials in his Department, against the considered view of Parliament. But everyone who has had experience in the administration of Measures dealing, as this Measure deals, not only with Acts of Parliament governing the concerns of these local authorities, but almost infinitely more with the numerous private Acts affecting these local authorities—Acts of which, I may point out, there is no codification, and where it is only after a course of time that even the local authorities concerned can themselves become aware of the circumstances—everyone with this experience knows that it is essential that, for a limited time, there shall be some power given to the Minister. All I would say is that we have, in the earlier part of the day, dropped out one of the Clauses giving powers to deal with this matter, and, in concentrating the remaining powers in this Clause, we have accepted exactly all those Amendments which were accepted on the English Bill dealing with a similar problem. In practically every case these Orders will have to be laid upon the Table of the House; and I think, in view of that fact and of the great modifications on the original Clause, the House need have less anxiety than it has had hitherto on this subject.

Sir R. HORNE: Will my right hon. Friend read the Clause as it would read with his Amendments inserted?

HON. MEMBERS: No time!

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I am exceeding reluctant, even by a momentary intrusion upon this Debate, to offer to my hon. Friends opposite any sort of argument in favour of Home Rule for Scotland, but this is a matter on which, I think, there can be no distinction whatever
of nationality. It is a matter which goes to the very root of our constitutional procedure in this House. I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir. A. Sinclair) into those very interesting discussions of the constitutional issues of the 17th century, but, if I may respectfully say so, he is absolutely right in suggesting that we are attempting to go back upon issues which we did think had been settled for all time as between the Crown and the individual subject in this country. After all, what the Minister is asking for in this Clause is that dispensing power which we abolished by the constitutional struggles of the 17th century, for it is a dispensing power.
The Minister has said he is going to move Amendments which will bring this Clause into conformity with the corresponding Clause in the English Bill. I am sure everyone will recognise the most conciliatory temper in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached the consideration of this Clause, and in which he is going to propose his Amendments, but although many of us recognise that some such Clause as this is a necessity under the complexities of a Bill like this, yet few of us who took an active part in the discussions on the English Bill were at all satisfied with the Amendments

which the Minister of Health put into that Bill. Therefore, it is no recommendation to us for the Secretary of State for Scotland to assure us that his Amendments will bring this Clause into conformity with the corresponding Clause in the English Statute—or, rather, Bill, because it has not yet become a Statute, and I hope very much that it will not find it way on to the Statute Book until the Clause is again and drastically amended. There may be others who de sire to speak on this subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]—but it is a question on which I have the strongest possible convictions, and I do not think any considerations of party ought to prevent one from giving expression to his views on it. I should oppose this Clause, I say frankly, quite as strongly, and perhaps a little more strongly, if it came in one of the Bills from the opposite Benches, but none the less do I welcome any help which we may obtain from hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether above or below the Gangway, in order to defeat a proposal which, in its details, is still, to my mind, exceedingly objectionable on the broadest constitutional grounds.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'by' in line 37, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 96.

Division No. 257.]
AYES.
[10.28 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Christie, J. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Apsley, Lord
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Atkinson, C.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Grotrian, H. Brent


Balniel, Lord
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hacking, Douglas H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cooper, J. B.
Hamilton, Sir George


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hammersley, S. S.


Bethel, A.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, G. J. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Haslam, Henry C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Ellis, R. G.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hills, Major John Waller


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fermoy, Lord
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fielden, E. B.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Burman, J. B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Carver, Major W. H.
Gates, Percy
Iveagh, Countess of


Cassels, J. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Goff, Sir Park
Lamb, J. O.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gower, Sir Robert
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Chapman, Sir S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Loder, J. de V.
Oakley, T.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Looker, Herbert William
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Skelton, A. N.


Lougher, Sir Lewis
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Lumley, L. R.
Pennefather, Sir John
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Storry-Deans, R.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


MacIntyre, Ian
Price, Major C. W. M.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Macmillan, Captain H.
Radford, E. A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Macquisten, F. A.
Raine, Sir Walter
Templeton, W. P.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Remer, J. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt. Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Margesson, Captain D.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ropner, Major L.
Wells, S. R.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Moreing, Captain A. H.
Rye, F. G.
Withers, John James


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.



Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sandon, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Savery, S. S.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.


Nuttall, Ellis
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Purcell, A. A.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben


Barr, J.
Hollins, A.
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bellamy, A.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Shield, G. W.


Benn, Wedgwood
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromfield, William
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Clarke, A. B.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Cove, W. G.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Harry
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Owen, Major G.



Hamilten, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given.

Amendment proposed:

In page 65, to leave out from the word "may," in line 37, to the word "and,"
in line 39, and to insert instead thereof the words:
make such order for removing the difficulty as he may judge necessary for that purpose."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Question put, "That the Amendment he made."

The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 94.

Division No. 258.]
AYES.
[10.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nuttall, Ellis


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oakley, T.


Atkinson, C.
Grant, Sir J. A.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Balniel, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pennefather, Sir John


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bethel, A.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hamilton, Sir George
Price, Major C. W. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hammersley, S. S.
Radford, E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burman, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Rye, F. G.


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Salmon, Major I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Casseis, J. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandon, Lord


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Savery, S. S.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Iveagh, Countess of
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Chapman, Sir S.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Skelton, A. N.


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Looker, Herbert William
Storry-Deans, R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Couper, J. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Styles, Captain H. W.


Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Tinne, J. A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacIntyre, I.
Ward, Lt Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ellis, R. G.
Macquisten, F. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wells, S. R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Margesson, Captain D.
Withers, John James


Fermoy, Lord
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moreing, Captain A. H.



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gates, Percy
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cove, W. G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Barr, J.
Day, Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bellamy, A.
Gillett, George M.
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)


Benn, Wedgwood
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kelly, W. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kennedy, T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kirkwood, D.


Broad, F. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Lawrence, Susan


Bromfield, William
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawson, John James


Bromley, J.
Grundy, T. W.
Lowth, T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Lunn, William


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hardie, George D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Clarke, A. B.
Hirst, G. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Cluse, W. S.
Hollins, A.
Maxton, James


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Tinker, John Joseph


Morris, R. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Tomlinson, R. P.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Scrymgeour, E.
Townend, A. E.


Mosloy, Sir Oswald
Shield, G. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Naylor, T. E.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wellock, Wilfred


Oliver, George Harold
Shinwell, E.
Westwood, J.


Owen, Major G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Whiteley, W.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Potts, John S.
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Purcell, A. A.
Stamford, T. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stephen, Campbell



Riley, Ben
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—



Sutton, J. E.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

Further Amendments made:

In page 66, line I, leave out the words "him necessary or expedient," and insert instead thereof the words "the Secretary of State necessary."

In page 66, leave out lines 3 to 5.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Amendment proposed:

In page 66, to leave out from the word

"order," in line 6, to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
make any adaptations or modifications of the provisions of any Act necessary to bring those provisions into conformity with the provisions of this Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 91.

Division No. 259.]
AYES.
[10.46 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lumley, L. R.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Apsley, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Atkinson, C.
Ford, Sir P. J.
MacIntyre, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macquisten, F. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gates, Percy
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bethel, A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Betterton, Henry B.
Golf, Sir Park
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gower, Sir Robert
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Boothby, R. J. G.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grant, Sir J. A.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hamilton, Sir George
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hammersley, S. S.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Oakley, T.


Burman, J. B.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cassels, J. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pennefather, Sir John


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hills, Major John Waller
Power, Sir John Cecil


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Radford, E. A.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Raine, Sir Walter


Christie, J. A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Remer, J. R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hume, Sir G. H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Couper, J. B.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ropner, Major L.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Iveagh, Countess of
Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rye, F. G.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lamb, J. Q.
Salmon, Major I.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Ellis, R. G.
Loder, J. de V.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Looker, Herbert William
Sandon, Lord


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Savery, S. S.


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfraw, W.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Templeton, W. P.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Skelton, A. N.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Withers, John James


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, Sir Frederick
Womersley, W. J.


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Tinne, J. A.
Wright, Brig-General W. D.


Stanley, Lieut. Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Warrender, Sir Victor



Storry-Deans, R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wayland, Sir William A.
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


Styles, Captain H. Walter
Wells, S. R.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batty, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Riley, Ben


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Benn, Wedgwood
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shield, G. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clarke, A. B.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

Amendment made:

In page 66, line 18, at the end, insert the words:
(4) An order under the foregoing provisions of this Section shall not be made after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Amendment, proposed:

In line 20, after the word "section," to insert the words:
or under Sub-section (2) of Section two or Sub-section (1) of Section seventeen or Subsection (2) of Section sixty-three of this Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 91.

Division No. 260.]
AYES.
[10.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Burman, J. B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Campbell, E. T.
Ellis, R. G.


Apsley, Lord
Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cassels, J. D.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Atkinson, C.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Balniel, Lord
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fermoy, Lord


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chapman, Sir S.
Fielden, E. B.


Bethel, A.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Betterton, Henry B.
Christie, J. A.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gates, Percy


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gilmour, Lt Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Briscoe, Richard George
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Goff, Sir Park


Brittain, Sir Harry
Couper, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grant, Sir J. A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
MacIntyre, Ian
Rye, F. G.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Macmillan, Captain H.
Salmon, Major I.


Hacking, Douglas H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Hamilton, Sir George
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Hammersley, S. S.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sandon, Lord


Harrison, G. J. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Savory, S. S.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Haslam, Henry C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Skelton, A. N.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hills, Major John Waller
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Storry-Deans, R.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Nuttall, Ellis
Templeton, W. P.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Oakley, T.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Tinne, J. A.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pennefather, Sir John
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Iveagh, Countess of
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wayland, Sir William A.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wells, S. R.


Lamb, J. Q.
Radford, E. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Raine, Sir Walter
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Withers, John James


Loder, J. de V.
Remer, J. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Looker, Herbert William
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Lougher, Sir Lewis
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harmon
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)



Lumley, L. R.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ropner, Major L.
Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Owen, Major G.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Riley, Ben


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Benn, Wedgwood
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Scrymgeour, E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shield, G. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kirkwood, D.
Stamford, T. W.


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clarke, A. B.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tomlinson, R. P.


Day, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Townend, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Naylor, T. E.



Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 70.—(Declaration of intention as to future increases of local expenditure.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In regard to
Clause 70, an Amendment was on the Order Paper which was never reached during the Committee stage. It has been on the Order Paper on the Report stage, and I should like to ask for your Ruling as to whether a Clause, which
is a declaration of intention as to what should happen in future Parliaments under certain hypothetical conditions, should not be ruled out of order altogether?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Resolution which was come to in regard to the allocation of time allotted to this Bill precludes me from dealing with points of Order in regard to questions arising on certain Clauses.

Mr. BENN: But, inasmuch as it is the function of the Chair to see that questions are not put which are out of order, would it not be right, under the Rules of Order and despite any Guillotine Resolution, for the Chair to see that no question is put from the Chair which infringes upon the Rules of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not putting any Question from the Chair, except Government Amendments, which the Resolution of the House lays it down that I am to do.

Mr. BENN: Nevertheless, and with great deference to you, I still submit that it is the function of the Chair to see that no matter is passed which infringes the Rules of Order and which is an outrage on the traditions of legislation in this country.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am putting no Motion from the Chair.

Captain GARRO-JONES: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!

Captain GARRO-JONES: I am entitled to put a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is it the same point of Order or something different?

Captain GARRO-JONES: I wish to put a different aspect of the same point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot deal with it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Then I wish to ask you a question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must remain seated when I am standing. I have already told him that I cannot deal with that point of Order.
I am precluded from doing so by the Resolution that the House has passed.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I wish to ask you a question on that point of Order. I am fully within my rights in doing so. I know what I have a right to do.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot deal with the point of Order now. Sir John Gilmour.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Audit of Accounts of County and Town Councils.)

Amendments made:

In page 72, line 27, at the end, insert the words:
The auditors of the accounts of the corporation of the City of Glasgow shall not be fewer than twenty without the consent of the corporation, and the tenure of office of such auditors shall not be less than five years from the date of appointment unless otherwise agreed with the corporation.

In page 73, line 8, after the word "the," insert the words "procedure and the."

In page 74, leave out from the first word "the" in line 29, to the end of line 32, and insert instead thereof the words:
amount of any illegal payment or of any loss or deficiency due to failure to bring a sum into account upon any person or persons by whose negligence or wrongful act that payment has been made or authorised or that loss or deficiency has been incurred.

In page 75, line 33, after the word "newspapers," insert the words "published or."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Amendment made:

In page 84, line 34, column 3, after the word "words," insert the word "from."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Ordered,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Secretary Sir John Gilmour to Clause 17, page 27, line 31, and in respect of the New Clauses relating to Amendment as to disqualification for pensions under 9 and 10 Geo. V, c. 102, and 15 and 16 Geo. V, c. 70, and Power of councils to expend money on public health propaganda."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Payment of travelling expenses by county councils, etc.)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 27, line 31, after the word "incurred," to insert the words "and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment."
It will be recollected that in Committee we had a very full discussion on this question, and I undertook to consider it. This Amendment is moved as a result of that consideration.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would have been better pleased if the Amendment had been wider, but I recognise that I cannot get everything, and at least I have got a concession which goes some way to meet what we asked, and I am grateful for that. I hope it will lead to an Amendment in the future by a Government representing this side of the House.

Sir BASIL PETO: Is the amount of remuneration to be paid in these circumstances to be limited to an ordinary weekly wage, or would somebody in receipt of a salary of £10,000 a year be given an exact amount in proportion to every hour?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I can say at once that it is on a restricted scale.

Amendment agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to disqualification for pensions under 9 and 10 Geo. V., c. 102, and 15 and 16 Geo. V., c. 70.)

"(1) A person who has become an inmate of any Poor Law institution for the purpose of obtaining medical or surgical treatment shall not, so long as he continues to require such treatment, be disqualified on the ground only that he is such an inmate, for receiving or continuing to receive an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, or under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and accordingly Sub-section (1) of Section three of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919, and paragraph one of the Third Schedule to the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, shall have effect as if the words 'during a period of three months from the date on which he became such an inmate if he,' were omitted therefrom, and as if after the words 'so long,' there were inserted the words 'as he.'

(2) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty."—[Major Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause sweeps away a certain disqualification on sick persons in Poor Law institutions. At present they are allowed to receive pensions up to a period of reeidence of three months, but after that they are disqualified.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of councils to expend money on public health propaganda.)

"It shall be lawful for any county council or for the town council of a large burgh to incur expenditure in making contributions to the central council or committee of an organisation approved by the Department of Health which provides services of the nature of publicity or educational propaganda for any purpose relating to public health, or in the provision by themselves of such services."—[Major Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is put down in consequence of an interesting discussion that we had when the Bill was in Committee before, as to the power of local authorities to spend money on propaganda in connection with venereal disease. I then undertook to go into the matter again with my right hon. Friend, it being understood that any proposals made would deal, not solely with that disease, but that general powers would be given for propaganda publicity in respect of health education as regards any kind of disease, and this proposed new Clause meets that undertaking. It is an interesting proposal, and one that I can confidently recommend to the Committee, more particularly as it allows local authorities themselves to undertake this expenditure, and I understand that it is particularly desired by the City of Edinburgh.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I am very glad that we are to have this New Clause, as far as it goes, though it is not quite what was asked for in the Amendment on which the discussion arose. I would have liked some national effort either by
the Department of Health, or some central organisation whereby national propaganda would have been effectively carried out. It has not been proved that to depend on the efforts of local authorities in this matter is satisfactory. However, I welcome the word "propaganda." I think it is right that it should not be confined to any disease. We know that in regard to cancer, for example, there is a great deal of ignorance and if public health propaganda as to the importance of the early treatment of cancer were carried out, many lives would be saved. While in this, as in other respects on this Bill, we have not got all we want, I welcome this concession as bringing in the principle that public health propaganda is the duty of public authorities.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended (on Recommittal), be reported to the House."

Mr. BENN: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see what question can arise.

Mr. BENN: The question you put from the Chair is: "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House." Before the Bill is reported to the House, I wish to direct your attention to a Clause which I allege is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to do that. Nothing can arise on the Question that I report the Bill, as amended, to the House. I presume that hon. Members can divide against it. Everything
in the Bill now has gone through. I think hon. Members in the past have attempted to raise points on this question, and invariably it has been ruled that it is not in order to do so.

Mr. BENN: May I submit that on this Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House," it is very important that these points should be raised. The matter which I am raising is not really the function of a Member of the House, but the function of the Chair, and I am drawing your attention to the fact. Recently, I may inform you, that in the House itself Mr. Speaker drew attention to the fact that a question of this kind should have been raised in Committee. We are now in Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: We are in Committee for certain specific purposes and no others. Now our function is discharged by having dealt with the business for which we have gone into Committee, and there can be no possible point of Order on any Clause now.

Bill reported; as amended, on recommittal, considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.